Rob and Lila Squad
You wrote:
> Bodvar:
> Thanks for your insights on the levels. I agree with a lot you said. Of course,
>you made
> a few points that I am unsure of buying into. I'd really appreciate your further
>input.
> A large part of my existence here is due to my struggle with the MOQ. It is stuck
>in my
> head because I can not resolve whether to accept it and move on, or reject it and
>move on.
Weighty words Rob. I recognize your predicament (no irony).
> I'm unsure whether you understood my viewpoints on being "sensitive to reality" when
>you
> paraphrased me. You wrote "any world view that brings you a 'blueprint' of reality
>that
> makes you able to analyze all situations in its light will do you good."
Right, I was not sure here.
> Basically, I believe that we should trust our experiences. If we can't -- we're
>screwed
> -- because as Pirsig explained that is all we have. What stops us from being
>grounded or
> sensitive to our experiences is a static attitude or mind. Note I am not saying the
> patterns that we experience are static. ATTENTION is static when one fearfully
>clings to
> desires, ideals, needs, insecurities and so forth. Unconditional love,
>consequently, is a
> catalyst of goodness. The world would be less insecure. Of course, the individual
>must
> ultimately *choose* to make an attitude adjustment. A fundamental difference
>between my
> views and the MOQ, is that the MOQ offers no notion of mind, will, attitude, or
> attention. (I promised not to talk about these things this month, but it always
>seems
> relevant.)
I have a feeling that the problem is that your MOQ starts at the
social level or -"worse"(IMHO) - in HUMAN societies which are heavily
laced by intellectual pattern of value. At the biological level we
can't but trust experience, something that the Hot Stove example
shows. Also at the (true) social level we do. Other people's opinions
shape our self image.
The MOQ offer no notion of mind, will, attention, attitude...you
say. Possibly not as something beyond "matter", but the Intellectual
level are these qualities - only now they are part of the value
universe.
> Back to the social level. You said that the MOQ is the first metaphysics to
>recognize the
> importance of society through its social level. Jealousy, insecurity, and
>insensitivity
> of reality are NEVER good. We don't need jealousy, for example, to hold society
> together. People just need to be in touch with how miserable we would be without
> society. Everyone wouldn't believe society was perfect, but they would want to do
>what
> they could to keep it working. Pirsig's gumption comes to mind. Other terms are
> sensitivity or love.
Well Rob if you don't mind, here's the proof of how much intellect
interferes in human matters. Social values are not always "good"
seen from intellect. Yet, jealousy, hate and contempt are strong
social glues. IMHO emotions - negative or positive - can be seen as
the Social Patterns of Value. They don't always keep people in a
marriage, but determine our social opinions.
> If racism, sexism, homophobia and so forth are social phenomenon then democracy,
>freedom
> of speech, inter cultural marriage, respect and tolerance are ALSO social
>phenomenon. If
> the latter are intellectual phenomenon, then so be the former! The
>social/intellectual
> struggle presented by Pirisig is an illusion. All of human choice requires use of
> intellect applied to experience. Our experiences most always have a social context
>-- as
> I explained earlier this is especially true when insecurities and fear come into
>play.
> But sometimes we ignore our intellect and/or the rest of our experiences. It is not
>the
> social level taking over. It is fear.
Yes, this an extremely relevant observation and shows that you have
seen what I harp on above. The (MOQ) social level is horribly
difficult to sort out from the intellectual superstructure. I we were
Neanderthals or Cro Magnons it would have been simpler. Racism,
sexism and homophobia was probable the order of the day, only with
intellect (as it emerged on top of society, not while it was in its
service). That's why I think MOQ's social level is not well
demonstrated in human societies.
> My previous example of being a bully illustrates this. I *chose* to
> ignore what I felt to be right. I don't see it as a social/intellectual struggle.
> I was clinging to something I wanted (popularity) and ignored my other
> thoughts. It is interesting that we often cling to "social" wants, but the
> clinging is more fundamental -- metaphysically speaking -- than the
> social aspects.
Yes, I agree, but "bullying" incidents may take place inside an
university campus for not sharing the accepted ideas. The want of a
professor - or whoever - to be a celebrity and press other people
into her/his fold is nevertheless social. Things are complicated, but
the MOQ sort them out in a better way.
Bo
"Quality isn't IN the eye of the beholder.
Quality IS the eye of the beholder".
(Platt Holden)
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
