From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Mar 20 2004 - 19:48:22 GMT
Wim and y'all:
Wim said:
Referring to your recent postings that abuse the 'Beyond'-thread:
Can you ****** Americans never stop bickering about whether information is
to be disctrusted because it is from a supposedly left-wing or from a
supposedly right-wing source?!? You are to be collectively pitied that your
political climate is so polarized that no-one seems to trust anyone else
that is not of his/her own political color.
The Pentagon report you are discussing appears to be interpreted radically
different by different journalists who have read it, which pleads for the
objectivity of neither of them. As soon as you are aware of that fact, you'd
better stop taking either of these 'information' sources for sure and either
read the report yourself before you comment on it or leave it out of the
discussion here.
dmb says:
I think that you belittle the debate as "bickering" not because America is
polarized, but because you deny one of Pirsig's central ideas; the idea that
we are presently in a period of evolutionary channge and that the social and
intellectual levels are at war. This is the metaphysics behind the debate
between Platt and myself. And its clear that you have missed the point even
on a political level. This really is NOT one of those cases where both sides
in the debate both have an equally valid point of view. To treat the global
warming views of a right wing think tank that is heaivly funded by polluters
as if they had any intention of producing or propagating unbiased scientific
data is the height of foolishness. To act as if the views of these oil
company "scientists" were just as valid as the majority opinion of the
scientific community is what's known as "grotesque even-handedness". The
suppression of the Pentagon's report is just one example in a long list of
anti-intellectual behaviour by the Bush administration. They have repeatedly
been as odds with science where ever there is a financial or ideological
conflict of interest. So, what I'm talking about is not lefty science vs.
right wing science. I'm talking about science vs politics. And that's why
this case represents what Pirsig describes as a conflict between social and
intellectual values. But then maybe this is all pointless to you, Wim,
because your "definitions" are entirely different than Pirsig's and so maybe
were not even discussing the same topic....
Wim said:
I don't agree that there is (or has been) a war between the intellectual and
social level anywhere. In my definitions of intellectual and social patterns
of value they are too discrete to be at war.
(I know, in 'Lila' Pirsig not only states that the levels are discrete, but
also uses the 'war' metaphor for the relation between these levels. For me
this implies an inconsistency in his ideas. Maybe because he is an American
too? (-;)
dmb says:
Too discrete to be at war? This war implies an inconsistency in his ideas?
Huh? Never mind, I don't want to know. In any case, if you reject Pirsig's
idea, one he says has been the theme song of the 20th and the driving force
behind wars that have killed nearly 200 million people, then my pointing out
current examples in that ongoing war will never be of any use to you - and
neither will the MOQ. I think you're missing the boat entirely by
subsituting your own definitions for Pirsig's key terms. (And as I've said
to just about everyone else who does that, I think its a rude, confusing and
dishonest practice.)
Wim said:
There can be a war between people behaving in accordance with a lower
quality social pattern of value and people behaving in accordance with a
higher quality social pattern of value. War, and more generally 'us versus
them' behaviour, is a relatively low quality social pattern of value anyway,
lower than cooperative behaviour.
dmb says:
Pirsig says that war and genocide are the antics of the giant, of the social
level and that the rise of the intellectual level after WWI was aimed at
controlling the problem. Pirsig's definitions of the levels allows us to
make a distinction that yours does not. In your view war and peace are just
two rival social pattterns with on real way to assert one over the other. I
want to say that such a view doesn't help, but in this case its worse than
that. You've decided to remove the distinction that DOES work in favor of
one that doesn't. Not only do I disagree with the view itself, but also the
act of destruction it inflicts on the MOQ's key terms.
Wim said:
They can motivate their behaviour using intellectual patterns of value of
different quality. (Those behaving in accordance with a higher quality
social pattern of value don't necessary motivate their behaviour with the
highest quality intellectual pattern of value...)
Unthinking behavioural patterns (collective 'habits') can't be at war with
patterns of motivation of behaviour (or patterns of understanding reality,
that are also part of the intellectual level), however.
dmb says:
Maybe its because English is not your native tongue. Maybe its because
there's something about the MOQ that threatens previous beliefs. Whatever
the reason, Wim, this makes no sense. The war between levels described in
Lila have very little to do with your definitions. Maybe "unthinking
behavior" can't be at war with "patterns of motivation" (Whatever THAT is.)
but that doesn't mean Pirsig's third and fourth levels can't be in conflict,
because they are completely different than yours. When using your
"definitions", you are not talking about the MOQ, only your definitions,
which are so far away from Pirsig's that they can't even be called
interpretations. For the sake of honesty and deceny, you really should call
them something else - at least in this forum.
Wim said:
I don't think it clarifies the discussion to associate 'the intellectual
level' with 'intellectuals'. 'Intellectual' is a role in a social pattern of
value.
dmb says:
Its hard to believe you're not joking. We shouldn't associate intellectuals
with the intellectual level? Why not? How can we reasonably avoid it? Isn't
that like saying we shouldn't associate scientists with science or doctors
with medicine? Yes, intellectuals play a role in society and participate in
social organizations. Since this is true of EVERY person, I fail to see what
the point is. Again, you want to erase distinctions that are central to
Pirsig's MOQ for unknown reasons. All persons are inorganic, biological,
social creatures. The intellectual level has been available to all of since
at least ancient Greece. The fact that we all share these levels in common
does not negate the fact that they in conflict.
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 20 2004 - 19:51:37 GMT