Tor, Bo, John B., Maggie and all philosophical speculators:
Tor, you should de-lurk more often. I thought your Thursday post was
well worth pondering. This post will start where yours ended.
"How about we have a role play where we pretend we're Victorians and try
to fathom a 4th intellectual level on top of our nice 3 existing ones,
using only social etiquette and not reasoning and logic in our
discussion? :-)"
Perhaps this tounge-in-cheek suggestion isn't quite as silly as it
seems. Bo closed his Friday post with a similar sentiment. He uses apt
examples to demonstrate the axiom; "A level doesn't recognize any level
above itself". Bo says,...
"That is correct. When focused in biology we are oblivious to anything
else, so is a football hooligan or a patriot when focussed on extreme
emotional states. Likewise when a person is deep in a scientific
study..."
And in a co-incidence that almost spooks me, John B closed his Saturday
post along the same lines. He points to the same war between social and
intellectual values. When making a point about the power of bad ideas he
says,...
"I'm sure the true believers in Naziism liked the final solution; does
that make it Quality to them? If it does, I want none of your
'Quality'...see Lila Ch29"
VICTORIANS, PATRIOTS AND NAZIS.
Tor, Bodvar and John, for different reasons no doubt, each close their
posts with a reference to good real-life examples of people who
represent social level values. I think you could add fundamentalists to
the list that includes Victorians, Patriots and Nazis. I don't mean to
seem like a sloppy thinker and am fully aware of their differences, but
people on the list are all the same in the sense that they are the
defenders of social level values. They are all reactionary,
anti-intellectual, militant, authoritarian and more or less genocidal.
Unfortunately, these creepy protectors are the only thing standing up
for social values. Its unfortunate because social level values are
absolutely necessary.
John says he HOPES "that a fifth level would act to integrate the
intellect with the social and biological values which continue to have
their important place in human existence."
John's wish is quite right, but he's put his hope in the wrong place.
One of the most important accomplishments of the MOQ is exactly the
integration he'd like to see in the fifth level. The MOQ's insistence
that the intellect be mediated through all the levels, including the bio
and social, is precisely how Pirsig gets it done. Bo knows. With a
Norwegian accent, he says,...
"The patterns of the lower levels are part of all higher levels.
Inorganic is low down the base of intellect."
John, buddy, dude. You beg to hear what has already been said. Pirsig
agrees with you on the integration request, your only task is to see how
he has already granted your wish.
I agree with your criticism of the internet for this same reason. It
lacks integration by skipping the biological level almost entirely.
Artificial Intelligence is twice as bad. But if all the levels are
properly recognized and the values they represent are given appropriate
accomodation, then you have a fully IN-FORMED intellect that is not just
a builder of "castles in the clouds", but is really grounded in all the
levels of static patterns. It results in the same outlook you present.
The MOQ is a "person centered" philosophy in the sense that our
intellect is at the cutting edge of evolution. We can think of it as
being at the top, but seeing at as central is just as good and means
essentially the same thing.
I suppose we could say that there is a battle within the intellectual
level, the battle between classical and romantic thinkers, but I think
it a big mistake to see the NAZIs as weavers of intellectual fantasy.
They only USED intellectual values to support aims that were almost
entirely based in social values. NAZI "intellectuals" are like "creation
scientists" in this respect. This is neither intellectual nor
scientific, both are just elaborate rationalizations of their social
values. As the conservative pundit and columnist George Will put it,
"You've got to understand that Fascism is not a doctrine. It is a
SENSIBILITY, and in Pat Buchanan you're looking at it." (Buchanan is an
anti-jewish social conservative and U.S. Presidential candidate who
practically worships Franco.)
The Victorians acted the same way, using ornate and flowery language to
express brittle and empty beliefs. They used Darwinism to justify their
cruel and rigid social values. Thus we get social darwinism and the
Native American genocide. I don't have to tell John what this attitude
did to the aboriginal people in his country.
I think its important to understand this point. If we can really
understand the nature of the battle between the 3rd and 4th levels, then
we can intelligently speculate about the coming battle between the 4th
and 5th levels. And this is not only one of the most important and
original aspects of the MOQ, it is a key to understanding the political
struggle in nearly every Western nation. The culture war, as
conservatives in America call it, is the battle between social and
intellectual values. It represents a split that exists in the "mind" of
every individual too. This conflict is quite real, we are still in the
middle of it, and it is historical and psychological at the same time.
It is within us and without us, so to speak. I don't think we have to
"pretend we're Victorians". We don't have to act as if the social level
had value for us. The trick is to glean its quality without turning into
a reactionary hick. (I think this requires each of us to explore the
depths of our mythologies, which can be found at your local bookstore
and in your own dreams. There is an amazing correspondence between
mythology and psychology, but that's another post.)
The difference between a reactionary hick and one who has a properly
mediated intellect brings us back to the axiom; A level doesn't
recognize any level above itself. That is to say, creationists and
Fascists are incapable of recognizing intellecual values. They can't see
beyond the social level. Creationist, who say evolution is "just a
theory" obviously don't understand what a theory is and cannot see the
difference between science and mythology. Patriots who say "My Country,
right or wrong" are simply not making an intellectual judgement about
the validity of any given foreign policy. Intellectually speaking, its a
thoughtless thought.
BUT, a properly mediated intellect can appreciate social level values
FOR WHAT THEY ARE and integrate that into the intellect.
I believe Pirsig's suggestion that we read Campbell's MASKS OF GOD make
this same point.
CONCLUSION
I'm not sure if I can say exactly how to reach this conclusion, or
exactly how it ties in with the culture wars. And I think I need
Maggie's help to flesh it out. (So glad to see you back!) She posted a
paper on the stages of cognitive development and the different levels of
thought of which we are capable. It was last winter, I think. And maybe
she just posted the link to the paper. If I remember correctly, it was
very impressive and would shed a lot of light on the question of a 5th
level. In any case, I think she and Tor are essentially correct to
suggest that the 5th level would not be rational. I'd much rather think
of it as post-rational or non-rational. The word "irrational" is a
little misleading in this case. If the 5th level were properly mediated
thru the intellect, then it would have a healthy respect for rationality
without being limited by it.
If we can think of the 5th level as an expansion of consciousness and as
a futher development in our cognitive abilities, and I thnk we can, then
the kind of post-rational awareness we're talking about becomes more
imaginable. It might include an improved and expanded use of language.
Maybe it could be described as the ability to convey the meaning of
distilled and penetrating thoughts, to be clear about the meaning of
paradoxical and ironic truths. It would be a creative, playful and
original use of thoughts and ideas. Such a "mind" could create
philosophy like an inspired poet instead of a lumbering technician, yet
precision would not suffer. And sure, the fifth level will be static
just like all the other levels, but it will be an expansion of freedom
too. It won't be DQ, by definition it'll be a static level, but it will
be more dynamic with a small "d". And I can't help but think it will be
spiritual if not downright mystical. This feels like a pretty solid
extrapolation to me. Whataya think?
DMB
P.S. BODVAR: I share your attitude toward Doug R's work, and then some.
In a word; YUK. But there is one thing I really don't understand. You
said, "...control of a SOLAQI is wildly different from control of a
MIND-intellect. The latter would simply be impossible to control, while
S/O logic can be checked by another way of thinking - not easily but
possible." I don't see what it is we're trying to control or what is
doing the controlling? What does it mean?
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST