From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jul 24 2004 - 21:27:12 BST
Platt, Paul, Arlo and all MOQers:
Platt said:
Perhaps our debate is a reflection of this "fight," with you championing
the social patterns in the name of the public good and I holding out for
the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail on his own using such
intellectual powers as he is able to muster to make decisions for himself
and enjoy or suffer the consequences, whatever they may be.
Paul replied:
...I think the personal or individual success (or failure) that you
"hold out for" also occurs at other levels, so cannot be a defining part
of the intellectual level. In my experience, the most dominant measure
of personal success is wealth - a social level phenomena. ..Anyway, in my
understanding of the MOQ, subordinating intellectual patterns to a primarily
social level goal of individual success is immoral.
dmb says:
I agree with Paul. Platt has it backwards and is "subordinating intellectual
patterns to a primarily social level goal" whether he realizes that or not.
And in this, Platt is quite consistent. In fact, I think Platt repeatedly
serves as an excellent example of an individual asserting social level
values. Obviously, this severely undermines the idea that individuals are
intellectual by definition. Hitler was an individual too, but Pirsig
characterizes him as anti-intellectual. Intellect was not necessarily
involved in the cultural changes brought on by the brujo either. Despite
Platt's insistence to the contrary, individuality and collectivity are not
relevant when sorting out Pirsig's levels, let alone difinitive. I'd guess
that this epic blunder is caused by a confusion betweeen Pirsig and Ayn
Rand, who makes quite a big deal out of the rivalry between individuality
and collectivity. But Rand also asserts that there is no such thing as
society, only individuals. She totally buys into SOM, even calling her
"philosophy" Objectivism. And she celebrates the virtue of selfishness and
the self-interest of individuals while Pirsig says that such a self is an
illusion. My point? Its hard to imagine two views that could be MORE opposed
than are Pirsig's and Rand's. Combining them the way Platt apparently has is
an intellectual trainwreck. The confusion of categories and levels
demonstated in Platt's arguements are at least partly caused by this crash.
Paul said to Platt:
I think your equation of "the individual" with the intellectual level
completely changes the MOQ's ontological framework, and consequently its
moral framework. What I'm unclear about, based on recent posts, is
whether you make the equation because you believe it provides a better
explanation of experience or because it supports your political beliefs.
dmb says:
Right. Platt's political beliefs are contrary to Pirsig's descriptions on
only every point. Ask what he thinks of the New Deal, for example, and I
imagine he's paint it as a collective effort and thus as a social level
construct. Ask what he thinks about the pursuit of wealth and fame and I
imagine he'd say that such a choice is made by the individual and is
therefore an intellectual choice. Its all backwards in Pirsig land, but it
serves conservatism and capitalism quite well. One can only conclude that
this distortion is motivated by political ideology. The ideas are far too
cookie-cutter to be taken as a "better explanation of experience". Its
fairly clear that the MOQ has been changed to accomodate easily recognizible
conservative positions. This is one of many cases where Platt has
subordinated intellectual values and asserted social level values in their
stead, an essentially anti-intellectual move.
Platt said:
...........................I take my notion that the intellectual level
might better be called the individual level from Pirsig's discussion of
insanity in Lila, Chapters 25, 26 and 30. Clearly there's a battle going
on between the ideas of an insane individual vs. his culture.
Platt interpreted a quote:
"When an insane person-or a hypnotized person or a person from a
primitive culture advances some explanation of the universe that is
completely at odds with current scientific reality, we do not have to
believe he has jumped off the end of the empirical world. He is just a
person (individual) who is valuing intellectual patterns that, because
they are outside the range of our own culture (society), we perceive to
have very low quality. Some biological or social or Dynamic force has
altered his judgment of quality. It has caused him (individual) to
filter out what we (society) call normal cultural intellectual patterns
just as ruthlessly as our culture filters out his (individual).
Paul replied:
I think the conflict described here is between the "normal cultural
intellectual patterns" that are socially endorsed and those intellectual
patterns that are not. I disagree with your assertion that culture is
identical with the social level. In the MOQ, culture is defined as
social *and* intellectual patterns.
dmb says:
I'd begin by advising Platt to take these discussions of insanity as such
and that Pirsig's descriptions of the intellect are far more relevant. I
mean, if a guy wants to know about intellectual values, why look for answers
in the discussions of insanity? In any case, the parenthetical
interpretation that Platt added to the quote above is the disasterous
Randian spin I already described. Such a reading turns everyone "outside the
range of our own culture" into some kind of intellectual hero. I think its
pretty clear that Pirsig is saying something quite different. He's just
saying that cultures have filters and describing them in MOQ terms. To take
it as an endorsment of individuality is a terrible misreading.
Platt said:
Individual success might best be thought of as adopting a new
interpretation of reality as described in Pirsig's works.
Paul replied:
I don't disagree. As I said in a previous post, intellectual success
would be measured by such things as the clarity, precision, magnitude
and elegance of one's ideas - and if that were the dominant measure of
individual success, I suggest we would be living in a very different
world.
dmb says:
Wouldn't it be great if we lived in that world? Philosophers would be
greeted by mobs of screaming fans. Beautiful women would throw scented
panties and hotel room keys at lecturing historians. Joan Rivers would go
gah-gah over the latest designer pocket-protectors as physicists stolled
down the red carpet. Anthropology professors would be stalked for photos and
autographs. All the heros in the movies would be like Robert Redford in
THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR and mathematicians would be hired as models for
fashion magazines. What a wonderful world that would be. It all makes me
wonder what color the sky is in Platt's world?
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 Jul 24 2004 - 21:29:35 BST