BO, Mark B, Todd and crew,
Our MOQ Hero, Bo, writes:
> On 5 May Marco told ......
>
> ....a very interesting story and concluded...
>
> > 1. The Giant is ALIVE.
> > (not biologically, of course).
>
> The metaphors about big social patterns as biological entities are
> inevitable, but your small bracketed insert is good enough for me.
> But then you "take off" again.
Firstly, I think it was clear that in my post was partly provocative. If you
want I can put that bracketed sentence also in the subsequent point:
2. The Giant is CONSCIOUS and HAS a WILL.
(not in the same way of humans, of course).
Do you like it now? The real problem is: what is LIFE? What is WILL? What is
CONSCIOUSNESS?
IMHO only using (metaphorically, of course) these terms referring to the
Giant, we can face it with some chance to understand its logic.
> ... what static level of yours is "run over" - in your story - by
> the municipal authorities? In my opinion it's the omnipresent
> "intellect vs society" struggle.
Your right, it's the omnipresent intellect Vs society struggle. The Giant is
good sometimes, but it can also be bad. My story is an example of (maybe) a
good choice, and the Giant won. I just tried to show there's a logic in it,
and this logic is not biological, nor intellectual, nor simply human. When
Giants take bad decisions, we must fight it. If we face it as a big living
conscious "monster" we have more chances than facing the single persons
active in it. (You can even kill the Mayor, but the road will be however
built)
Mark B writes:
> Yes! Dynamic Quality- the creative force. But the
> mammoth task would be to persuade the whole
> citizenship that your logic is better that the
> existing one. How do you accomplish this in today's
> world? Through what channels? Politics? Education?
> Literature? Internet discussion groups?
In our western societies, we are living in the intellectual era, and
definitely we have a lot of channels. Essentially I'm talking of all the
means (Media, in Latin) we have today thanks to the Intellectual level
conquests: freedom of speech, habeas corpus, democracy and so on.
> And then,
> who's to say that your alternative logic having
> eventually succeeded in overthrowing the existing
> Giant wouldn't turn out after all to be a degenerate
> masquerading as a savior?
>
Well, our free will pushes us to fight for our convictions. We say in Italy
"one day, they will pronounce this hard sentence" . It's better to be wrong
than to be inactive. Time (and DQ) will be the judge.
Bo again:
> The problem is of course that there exist no "social value" in
> intellect's SOL-world. It has to create a quasi-biological giant with
> an evil mind/will set upon crushing the noble individual ....who
> supposedly would have been completely happy hadn't it been for
> the abominable social oppression.
I don't agree. My intellect can understand what are the advantages of this
life immersed in this Giant. If not, I can go away and live like an hermit,
or I can choose a different Giant. This is possible here today thanks to
the freedom of movement. But if you go back just 15 years to East Germany,
you will find a bad Giant. People there could not move westward, could not
choose another Giant. In that situation, the battle against the Giant was
difficult, especially 'cause of the lack of freedom of speech. They were
not yet living in the intellectual era.
Tood wrote:
> My problem is that you are always ready to " find another pretext to
> zoom in on your pet theory: "the mind fallacy." You are just a little to
> indoctrinated for my style. Not that that is bad, its just,
well .."Static".
> (Not every month is for ringing the SOLAQI bell)
So I'm not the only one!
Bo again:
> > "The metaphysics of substance makes it difficult to see the Giant."
>
> I know this is Pirsig speaking, yet it's the Substance Metaphysics
> that requires a Giant. A (biological) living monster WITH a mind of
> its own. According to the MOQ the social level is mightier than the
> biological level and our biological values are "cowed" by it, but we
> perceive social value too. The Giant is my social self, no quasi-
> biological monster that the SM invites us to see.
I'm sorry, but I never had the impression of a Giant before reading Lila.
In my case, MOQ made me see the Giant, while SOM showed me only cities and
people. And MOQ also showed me that I'm part of the Giant. You seem to say
the Giant doesn't exists, and then you conclude we are (part of?) it.
> Right! Intellectual value has long since overlaid social value so we
> need not be heroic to protest (Marco's) municipal authorities or
> Microsoft. God! It's more of the opposite. Everybody visualize
> themselves as puppets up against all kinds of evil Giants. And as
> you notice: it's intellect - always intellect - out to grind its axe.
> Why are WE blind to Intellectual tyranny?
LONG SINCE? Less than one century (in the west), 10 years (in ex-communist
countries), and we have a lot of places where freedom of speech and
democracy are a dream!
> Funny, I have never felt oppressed by society, but all the more by
> intellect. God! It came to me this very moment. Now I understand
> why the MOQ fascinates me so much and why everything looks
> trite in comparison. It is liberation from the intellectual
> MONSTER!!!! Breaking free from society is peanuts these days,
> but breaking free from intellect/SOM is the new heroism. That's
> why Pirsig's ideas are shunned by all "intellectuals". Phew!
> Another epiphany. Thanks David B. for switching me on to it.
You have never felt oppressed by THIS society, that is (partly) controlled
by intellect. But I think you are old enough to remember Nazis. I don't, but
I listened a lot of old people here talking about the 20 years of Fascism.
Sometimes they weep remembering such a tragedy. As long as you go on
thinking that Intellect is only a bad SOM monster you will never find the
way. Now you are going to make a deal with the social level against
intellect. WOW! The same mistake of hippies in the sixties, when they made
a deal with biology against society. PLEASE, DON'T.
Do you want to be an hero? Go to Kabul and tell the Talebans they must grant
the freedom of speech to women, Christians, Buddhists or gays.
SOLAQI? And where do you put MOQ, Bo? It's not Intellectual, so did you
discovered the fifth level? Too complicated for me. Isn't it more simple to
assume that SOM is only a (social) attempt to create and consolidate the
fourth (intellectual) level, just like bees are a biological attempt to
create a society? And that MOQ is a better attempt?
Do you want my pet theory?
1) SOM is a metaphysics risen during the third level (social) era.
2) The fourth (intellectual) era arises after first world war, so MOQ is
completely intellectual.
3) The mistake of SOM is that SOL is a very good intellectual tool facing
the objective (Inorganic/Biologic) world, but useless facing the subjective
(social/intellectual) world. Science and technology (derived from SOM) are
excellent just to build bridges or rockets.
I can't find a good abbreviation for it, but I would like to know what's
the opinion of you all, moffers. I'm inclined even to change or complete it,
if you can convince me I'm wrong. But also I would like that you, Bo, take
this chance to discuss your SOLAQI without suggesting it everyday like a
Bible seller.
And sorry if I've been hard, (once you told me you're impervious).
Be Good
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST