On 3 Jun 2000, at 17:35, David Buchanan wrote:
> Focs: I was looking at chapter 22 the other day. That's where the
> social and intellectual levels meet, so to speak. To really get a
> handle on the intellectual level, I think we have to see how it is
> different than the social level. To rightly assert that some "thing"
> or other is at the fourth level, you've got to show how it transcends
> the third.
Hi David B. and Focussers.
Yes, the intellectual level must be seen in relation to the social
level (the Q variants of course!) to understand its "nature".
> Chapter 22 is the place to go for that. It discusses the
> historical events that mark the intellectual level's take-over after
> WWI and such. There is much talk about Victorians and Anthropologists,
> but of course they represent that larger struggle between the 3rd and
> 4th levels. They're like the front-line soldiers in the battle between
> social and intellectual quality. It is a complex chapter and the
> issues extend into the chapters before and after it. In fact, the
> issues disscussed there go back to the section about the Giant. (The
> Victorians built New York City, etc.) Its a huge part of the MOQ, its
> about real-world historical events, its about a battle that continues
> even at this moment. The Victorians are back. Fascism is back. I mean,
> this is no academic exercise. If I understand what Pirsig has said
> about the history of the 20th century, what I hear in the news
> everyday reflects this same struggle.
I will not question these statements, intellectual values are at a
higher plane than the social ones, yet the latter are values
nevertheless and the latch that existence catches if/when things go
to pieces at intellect ....and always the foundation for intellect.
> And since the MOQ is all about
> evolutionary morality, a victory for the Victorians would mean a step
> back in evolution and the triumph of evil, for lack of a better word.
> Ironically, the Victorians pose as the defenders of morality, but
> they're just moths, doomed by their own static stupidity. It would be
> like putting cavemen in charge of ancient Rome. We're talking about a
> world too nightmare-ish even for Orwell to describe.
Correct -seen from intellect - but the trick is that social value looks
very promising when focus shift.
> I think
> intellectual quality is very important and ought not be defeated.
> Perhaps you've noticed that by now.
Yes , we have noticed and you are absolutely right..
> Switching gears and getting a
> little more specific, I'd like to offer a few thoughts about the
> relationship between intellectual quality and "smart people" with
> PhDs. In a common-sense sort of way, it seems that a reasonable amount
> of intelligence would be ONE OF the requirements for real intellectual
> qualtiy.
Your observation of the (lack of) relationship between smartness
and the Q-intellect is valid, if the MOQ has liberated us from
anything it is SOM's intimate bond between (what it calls) intellect
and intelligence, something that has screwed up every attempt at
coming to grips with .....for instance so-called "Artificial
Intelligence". All of you know the many statements of how smart
machines may become, that they even may start to THINK which
from SOM's premises means: they will become "aware" - wake up
to "consciousness" etc. This we will return to no doubt.
> Being smart isn't enough all by itself. The fascist bigot
> (William Pierce, author of THE TURNER DIARIES) who inspired the
> Oaklahoma City bombing has a PhD in Physics. He's plenty smart.
Right, no one are as "dense" as the academics :-). I had my own
brush with the so-called philosophers of our local university about
Pirsig, but it was perhaps even more stupid of me to believe that
anyone formally educated would be open to new ideas. Ha!
> But
> he's not mentally healthy. Hitler was not stupid, but clearly his mind
> was not right somehow.
Well, I have a few misgivings about bringing "mental health" as a
criterion into the Q-picture. In LILA psychiatry is called the
"cultural immune system", and once one sees how slyly it is used
one winces a little over its present almighty status.
> This aspect of consciousness is almost entirely
> overlooked. Its not just about putting the right information into a
> mind that works properly, its about the evolution of our individual
> consciousness within a single lifetime. By failing to grasp and life
> out intellectual values, the individual impedes the evolution of the
> big picture. Its about your responsibility in the battle that rages.
I don't really fear that intellectual values aren't "grasped and lived
out" enough in our culture - they are to the extreme - rather that
things would improve if we grasped the MOQ view which would
mean that intellect is seen as the top value plane, but as ONE
value plane - not reality itself.
Thanks for reading.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:23 BST