Ian and Groupies
On 15 Nov. you wrote:
> A good point of DMB's was that "I know it" (Levels 3 and 4) even
> though they are undefined ... a much more interesting point in itself.
> Another good point of DMB's was that seeing Level 4 as SOM and level 3
> as various state oppressions, is probably a valid idea from a
> historical perspective .... I'd agree .... but not much of a clear
> definition .... not that I'm expecting to find one .... just looking
> to conlcude that there isn't one.
The "Bush" part of DMB's post (below) was just as good as the
"Love my country"=Social value and E=MC2=intellect examples.
> > "When the Bush administration supresses scientific data for political
> > and financial reasons, is that just a clash of equal philosophies? Are
> > we really powerless to discern the difference or see patterns? C'mon you
> > guys, the difference between ant colonies and human societies is as
> > stark as the difference between pheromones and moral laws....etc."
he (DMB) simply means that Bush's political & financial reasons=
Social value and that scientific data=Intellectual value. I would
add that when such takes place in a 4th. level-dominated country
like the USA it is seen as immoral and must be done "under
cover". But the point is that this is a clash of two value levels, and
that's right. With "pheromones vs moral laws" DMB means
biology vs society which is just as right.
Yet, where DMB so horrendous fails is believing that there are
non-S/O intellectual patterns. This may be based on LILA that
avoids saying "intellect" and uses science as a scape goat when
accusing it of falsely claiming to be above MORALS or VALUES.
Look at this passage:
A scientist may argue rationally that the moral question,
"Is it all right to murder your neighbor?" is not a scientific
question. But can he argue that the moral question, "Is it
all right to fake your scientific data?" is not a scientific
question? Can he say, as a scientist, "The faking of
scientific data is no concern of science?"
If he gets tricky and tries to say that that is a moral
question about science which is not a part of science,
then he has committed schizophrenia. He is admitting
the existence of a real world that science cannot
comprehend. What the Metaphysics of Quality makes
clear is that it is only social values and morals,
particularly church values and morals, that science is
unconcerned with. (LILA)
It's not science that relegates morals to the religious realm. It's
the intellectual LEVEL that does so. Religion is social value and
when intellect began to free itself from its parent it did so by
declaring itself above morals - being OBJECTIVE - hence SOM!.
What Pirsig means is that murder is Social Morals, while faking
scientific data is Intellectual Morals, which is right because in the
MOQ all is morals - different levels of morals. But why for
Goodness' sake not admit that the 4th. level=the S/O distinction
instead of uphold this impossible "intellect" that - according to
DMB is a vessel that one moment can contain the SOM the next
the MOQ? In this "mind"-like intellect the 3rd. level is also an
intellectual pattern as the second and first levels too ... and SOM
prevails.
> Be good Bo, if you could try to confirm your understanding of my
> point, before we debate further.
The above is a confirmation of my understanding. What your
point is, please say again. I just manage a couple of posts a day.
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
