Rick, Captain Nemo :-), Jonathan, all MF
Magnus has recovered my lost post (thanks!), and I'm going to resend it,
with
little integration, according to your interventions.
Nemo wrote:
> It does not matter whether individual freedom is a mean or an end to
> intellectual level because our definations have created the concepts of
> means and ends. The question will serve no other purpose than to further
> form patterns/concepts/symbols which will be even farther from reality.
Well, Nemo, your reasoning comes flawless, but I don't feel ok with it.
Firstly
because to "form patterns/concepts/symbols" is the way universe
evolves, so I
think it's perfectly a moral activity. Secondly, because stating that
patterns
"will be even farther from reality" is like to state that patterns are
not real,
while static patterns are real, as well as DQ. Separating patterns from
reality
creates a dualism, while the MOQ is a monism.
And I find problems even with the first part of your conclusion. You
reject the
question as meaningless ("it does not matter"), but this way you state
that it
is generally meaningless to talk about means and ends. On the other
hand, even
RMP writes in Lila (ch. 24):
«Therefore, to the question. "What is the purpose of all this
intellectual
knowledge?" the Metaphysics of Quality answers, "The fundamental purpose
of
knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve society". Knowledge has
grown
away from this historic purpose and became an end in itself [...] and
this
growing away from original purposes toward greater Quality is a moral
growth.
But those original purposes are still there. »
That is, questions about means and purposes are not meaningless in a
MOQ.
Pirsig clearly states that knowledge was born as a mean in the
fundamental
purpose to improve and preserve society. And that then knowledge became
an end
in itself. Actually this passage triggered the question I've suggested
this
month. My concern was: the knowledge of what?
Let me now explain what I have in my mind...
I guess we all agree (even Jonathan) that one of the values the
intellectual
level defends is the individual freedom from social constrictions.
Also, I
guess we all agree that the more a social pattern supports and empowers
the
individual (or, at least, the less it curbs the individual), the more it
is
moral. And that, even if the individual freedom is more moral than
social
traditions, it doesn't mean that the individual should kill the society,
as
every intellectual pattern needs a supporting social layer. Of course, I
guess
many also will agree that the problem is to find the right formula to
balance
individual freedom and social duties, as an excessive individualism
could
represent the end of the necessary supporting social patterns. Actually,
I see
the never-ending discussions between libertarians and liberals as
discussions
about that formula.
My current (personal) interpretation of the society-to-intellect
evolution says
that the first form of individual has been created in a social context
as
division of labour. In that phase, devolving to singles or small groups
few
precise duties increased the social adaptability and versatility. The
same
happens nowadays: in order to grow up to adult individuals (that is a
thing our
social context calls us to, and on the other side a thing we firmly
desire), we
have to demonstrate to our social partners in our social contexts
(family,
school, job....) that we deserve our individuality. In this "game" both
society
and individual gain value, so it is a moral process.
Well, IMO the division of labour was also the basic reason for those
ancient
tribes of hominids to develop abstract thought, symbolic language,
planning. In
facts, these are necessary tools in order to exchange information
between
isolated groups or individuals. That's why I think that there has always
been a
strict relation between intellect and individual.
Back to the topic there are IMO two possible interpretations. The fist
one sees
intellect as the level of science, knowledge, rationality and so on, and
the
individual as a mean to all that: actually wherever the individual
freedom is
strong, all these intellectual activities seem to be more effective.
This is
clearly the interpretation of Rick:
> Given these initial thoughts, I'm tempted to conclude that an
> individual's freedom from society is a mean of Intellect towards the end
> of its own survival... Freedom is an Intellectual self-defense mechanism
> that is imposed over Society to insure that Intellect isn't choked off by the
> same Society that is required to support it.
So, knowledge is the end. Knowledge of everything, I'd say. In one word,
Science
(for what I know, science and knowledge are basically the same thing) .
This
seems also in tune with the Pirsig's passage I've offered above.
But I do prefer another line of thought. Let's not forget that Pirsig
himself
writes also that SOM science has a defect in it, and suggests to go back
to the
roots and recover the Sophist mot: "Man is the measure off all things".
This
way, he suggests to sort of rebuild the intellectual edifice putting
*Man-in-its-relation-with-Reality* as central point, surpassing the SOM
vision
of reality as a separated entity. According to this position,
investigating the
self IS investigating reality. Even better: investigating the self is
the best
form of knowledge. The *self-in-its-relation-with-reality* is the MOQ
science,
in opposition to the knowledge of a separated reality -the SOM science.
"Know
yourself", claimed Socrates. The Motorcycle is the Self.... isn't it?
According to this line of thought, IMO the individual freedom from
society
should be added to the list of the intellectual purposes. Not only
improve and
preserve society, but also improve and preserve the individual, as
without the
individual there is no self, and, without the self, knowledge is the
defective
and objective SOM science (that actually has been mainly developed in
times when
individual freedom was not granted at all!).
Basically, I do prefer this line of thought as it enlarges the vision of
intellectual level as merely the level of reason and SOM science. In
facts, an
intellectual level without the individual freedom as purpose could also
curb it:
what has it been communism, if not an intellectual application in which
the
individual freedom was considered valueless?
And there's finally another point. In a MOQ Science, art is not a fuzzy
platypus. If we don't separate the self and reality, here we have that
both
reason and art are excellent tools, as they are complementary in this
effort.
Enough for now.
thanks for reading,
Marco
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:32 BST