Ian and Spirit
13 Dec. Spirit quoted Ian.
[Ian]
> No Bo, SA, read that Pirsig quote again ... "declared intellectually
> illegal by the SOM that dominates social thought" He is saying that SOM
> is a pattern within this intellectual / social area of morals, but he is
> not saying SOM *is* the entirety of intellect. Just the current dominant
> pattern ... the problem "of our times" for the last 300 years or so ....
> a very low quality definition of intellect.
I have always said that Pirsig is vague on this issue, he wavers
back and forth between SOM as a corruption of the intellectual
level and the intellectual level as the S/O distinction which is the
correct notion IMO. (p 48 in my digital LILA).
Now, it should be stated at this point that the Metaphysics
of Quality supports this dominance of intellect over
society. It says intellect is a higher level of evolution than
society; therefore, it is a more moral level than society. It
is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a
society to destroy an idea.
Intellect's purpose is to dominate society. This far we all agree.
However the "idea" definition muddles things, there surely are
social ideas that undermines intellectual ideas,
But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on
to say that science, the intellectual pattern that has been
appointed to take over society, has a defect in it. The
defect is that subject-object science has no provision for
morals.
Who has appointed "science" to dominate society (which is short
for "social value") if not science (or SOM) is the best intellectual
pattern to fulfill intellect's purpose? I can't for the life of me figure
out what a level is besides its value, unless one is so mired in
SOM that the term "intellect" conjures up intellect's (while SOM)
own "intellect": A mental compartment where symbols are
manipulated.
To complete the passage.
Subject-object science is only concerned with facts.
Morals have no objective reality. You can look through a
microscope or telescope or oscilloscope for the rest of
your life and you will never find a single moral. There
aren't any there. They are all in your head. They exist
only in your imagination. From the perspective of a
subject-object science, the world is a completely
purposeless, valueless place.
This is correct and describes SOM before Pirsig's MOQ that
turned this destructive force into a great - but domesticated -
value level. .
[SA currently]
> Ian, I know this. I'm pointing out to Bo where his line of thinking
> takes him. Bo is openly stating that the intellect and society is
> immoral and valueless,
"Intellect and society is immoral and valueless"? OK, no level
knows anything about being a level, it just knows its value and
pursues it relentlessly. So did biology until society checked it, and
society until intellect checked it and now the MOQ checks
intellect and in this sense there IS a level-like relationship
between the two. Yet, the MOQ is no static level it just reveals
the Quality context. A meta-level like General Relativity isn't
relative but the meta-level from where everything's relativity is
seen. Spoon-feeding ;-)
> but he is stating that the moq level (his interpretation) has the S/O
> intellect do a "proper job". Now what that is, I don't know,
As Pirsig says: " The MOQ supports this dominance of intellect
over society." That's intellect's proper job.
> other than, for me, it means taking the next step and allowing ones
> intellect and society to be moral and the gates of quality opened to
> let value in. We need to discuss an intellect that is healing. A
> society that is healing. Bo is not ready to take this next step and
> allow the healing process to begin. He's still pointing out the
> dilemma.
You are a good person, but haven't got a clue about the MOQ.
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/
