Hi Glenn, Tor and all:
If there were such a thing as a fifth level, we would NOT be able to
make sense of it with our intellect, just as the social level doesn't
recognize intellectual values, just as hunger doesn't care about table
manners.
The recent "conversation" between Glenn and Tor represents a critical
issue. (Funding the cyclotron) I think Tor is not only right, but his
view was practically demonstrated. Glenn's apparent wish to dismiss the
intellectual level itself was supported by an "embarrassing" and
illogical argument. (Nothing personal here Glenn. And I'm honestly sorry
if it stings.) I've seen too much of such "reasoning", especially in the
other forum. And this is not just a way of insulting the intelligence of
those who don't see things the way I do, although it may have that
effect. I bring this up because I think it demonstrates the axiom that a
level can't really see the one above it. Its probably more like the
higher level values "don't matter" and are not appreciated by lower
levels., but the basic idea is the same.
Let me use some un-named individuals from the other forum as an example.
Hopefully this will prevent the debate from getting too personal and/or
over-heated.
We'd been discussing the MOQ morality of Hirsoshima when I pointed out
that it was simply against the law, that the bombing violated legal
principles (Int PoVs) that the US had already adopted by 1945. I'd said
that Truman ignored those principles, either willfully or through a
genuine lack of knowledge, in deciding to drop the big one. The crux of
the argument was that Truman based his act on social level values that
were contradicted by higher intellectual values and was therefore
immoral. (Although I don't think we need a whole need metaphysics to
conclude that indiscriminate killing of civilians is immoral.)
There were several people who posted their disagreements, using mostly
emotional patriotism as a defence. And none of those who sought to
defend Truman ever even mentioned the crux of the argument. Everyone one
of them ignored the laws and principles, just as Truman himself had. It
was as if those ideas were invisible to them. It was as if I'd never
said anything about it at all. Perhaps there was no good reply and so
they chose to dance around it. Maybe they really didn't understand what
I was saying. It could be that they know perfectly well what I'm talking
about, but choose to "pretend" otherwise for some reason. What ever the
case, they obviously find no value in the intellectual principles
involved, or think such values shouldn't even be involved in the first
place, or they simply don't see the difference between the 3rd and 4th
levels. Sure, its frustrating to have such a conversation, but that's
not really the point.
This blindless isn't so much about intelligence, but values and
attitudes. (Although one of them also requested that we all limit our
vocabulary to words with five letters or less because he was dhaving
trouble following along and he also said Hitler wasn't so bad, just
overly ambitious, so I guess you could say plain old stupidity is
culprit in some cases.) And I'm not suggesting that intellectuals ought
to return the favor by ignoring the value of social patterns, quite the
contrary. What I'm objecting to is the very idea of anti-intellectual
philosophers. Not only does philosophy require a competent intellect,
Pirsig's philosophy puts intellectual values at the top and at the
cutting edge of evolution, insisting that they rule in cases of conflict
with the social level. I think its not just a matter of being correct,
according to the MOQ I think anti-intellectual philosphers are actually
degenerate, at least in a certain sense.
If Pirsig is right, and I think he is, then the history of the 20th
century is explained by the conflict between the social and intellectual
levels. And that struggle still goes on to this day, even in this forum,
no? Again, I'm gringing this up not to hurt anyone's feelings, but it
seems this struggle has a very real effect this forum, which is in our
common interest.
I don't think there are any answers or solutions to this problem. What
can we do, impose some kind of intellectual litmus test? That's not too
likely and it wouldn't even be wise.
I'm breaking some windows here, but its only because there are flames
and smoke billowing out of the house.
DMB
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST