Murdock, Mark (Mark.Murdock@Unisys.Com)
Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:44:39 +0100
Isn't the important idea concerning intellectual patterns of value not
when they emerged in society but when they sought freedom from the then
dominant social values? Intellectual patterns of values have been
around since we have. It has been their position relative to social
values which has only recently changed.
The hierarchy of values is a model more for relative value comparisons
and less for evolution itself. That is, it does roughly describe our
evolution from inorganic to organic to social to intellectual, but the
structure is better suited to describe morality of one level of values
over another.
I hesitate to posit that, at some point, no intellectual patterns of
value existed. It doesn't make sense, it's not intuitive. If I were to
teach a 5-year-old what intellectual patterns of value are, I would say
they are simply "ideas." He would likely reply, "Why don't you just
call them ideas?" Then I'd stand there dumbfounded. This is the
problem I see with overintellectualizing the FAQ. It misses the greater
treasure trove that Lila offers, namely, that there is an order to
what's right and what's wrong, or what's good and what's better for
those of you purists. The intellectual movement of the early part of
this century cut society adrift with no moral compass. Many organized
religions have suffered under the hands of hypocrites. Good people now
struggle with what is right! The intellectuals (in service of power)
are saying one thing, and the church and bible are saying one thing and
my body is saying one thing and so on.
In Lila, Pirsig has constructed an intellectual theory which supports a
moral order. We have a compass back delivered by someone we can trust -
an intellectual. No Rolex-wearing televangelist is calling us sinners
here, but make no mistake about it, Lila is a tool for judging. This is
anathema to intellectuals and why most of us cringe to hear it. What
right do we have to judge? Well, the right for society to survive, the
right for people to not to die of hunger or be tortured, the right for
our planet to live and so on. With Lila, we have a solid intellectual
support for these decisions. They are not capricious or self-serving,
they follow a natural order of Quality.
It shouldn't require arcane definitions to succeed. It begs simplicity.
We should be easily able to describe it to that 5-year-old.
Thoughts?
> ----------
> From: Dave Thomas[SMTP:dlt44@ipa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 7:24 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of
> Subject: LS Re: FAQ - Metaphysics and all that
>
> Maggie
>
> I don't want to you to think I'm picking on you in this case it just
> your post
> is the most recent in which I have seen a comment like this:
>
> > None of this is "conscious". No intellectual patterns exist at this
> point.
> > But the patterns are not innate, either.
>
> My question is: How do we know this? And I think somewhere Pirsig
> mentions
> something about this. We all tend to think that these philosophical or
> intellectual process emerged about the time we started writing things
> down be
> cause we have some archeological artifacts. But with as little as we
> currently
> know about the mind; How can we say that intellect did not happen very
> close
> to the time of socialization?
>
> Since you seem to be the resident expert in the social area thought
> you could
> read my the chapter and verse.
>
> Dave
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST