[Bo]
> 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).
[SA currently]
Hey Plato! Did you ever hear of change?
[Bo]
> 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.
[SA currently]
Read the quote again, as Ian suggested. The S/O
distinction is an immoral corruption of the society, a
genetic defect.
[Bo]
> It is better for an idea to destroy a society than
> it is for a society to destroy an idea.
[SA currently]
That's correct. This society is being destroyed,
I for one can speak for the U.S. culture that is stuck
in an S/O dominated society. If you want to help heal
society change your intellect.
[Bo]
> Intellect's purpose is to dominate society. This far
> we all agree.
[SA currently]
Sure, and the inorganic level can wipe everything
out. Lose the foundation of any level, and the top
levels collapse. If destruction is the way this
society is to go, then warnings, such as the pre-WW1
warnings, are happening again.
[Bo]
> However the "idea" definition muddles things, there
> surely are
> social ideas that undermines intellectual ideas,
[SA currently]
From the foundational levels the levels on top
can arise.
[Bo]
> 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.
[SA currently]
You got it. S/O intellectual patterns have no
provision for morals, just as your SOL interpretation
has no provision for morals in any of the static
patterns.
[Bo]
> 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?
[SA currently]
S/O science disregards value and morals as false
and non-existent.
[Bo]
> I can't for the life of me figure
> out what a level is besides its value,...
[SA currently]
A level is a tool, but if the ratchet doesn't
fit, for there is no Plato eternal fixation going on
in the moq, then use a different tool to understand.
[Bo]
> 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.
[SA currently]
Your English is not coming through here very
well. This is a sincere statement.
[Bo quoting here]
> To complete the passage.
> Subject-object science is only concerned with
> facts.
[SA currently]
Yeap.
[Bo continues]
> 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.
[SA currently]
Your SOL interpretation is therefore a
"completely purposeless, valueless place."
[Bo]
> This is correct and describes SOM before Pirsig's
> MOQ that
> turned this destructive force into a great - but
> domesticated - value level. .
[SA currently]
There you go, now let the value come forth as
dharmakaya light as intellectual patterns are, as well
as, all static patterns and dynamic quality.
[Bo]
> "Intellect and society is immoral and valueless"?
[SA currently]
That's what you profess. That's your SOL S/O
interpretation of Quality. I feel empathy. Let's
change this S/O intellect into an intellect of quality
in which it truly is in the first place anyways.
[Bo]
> OK, no level knows anything about being a level, it
just knows
> its value and pursues it relentlessly.
[SA currently]
The intellectual level understands levels, but
what your point is here I don't know.
[Bo]
> 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.
[SA currently]
Biology still does pursue value, so does society,
and intellect. They are all static patterns of value.
Value through and through.
[Bo]
> Yet, the MOQ is no static level it
> just reveals the Quality context.
[SA currently]
The MoQ is describing reality, that's what
metaphysics means. The levels are tools as I mention
above. If you don't like them, then you don't need to
use them. Other tools are available, such as walking
in the woods.
[Bo]
> A meta-level like General Relativity isn't relative
but the meta-level
> from where everything's relativity is seen.
[SA currently]
I don't know what your saying here.
[Bo]
> Spoon-feeding ;-)
[SA currently]
I'll help you.
[Bo]
> As Pirsig says: " The MOQ supports this dominance of
> intellect over society." That's intellect's proper
job.
[SA currently]
You got it! So, as long as an S/O intellect
dominates society, then society will be paralyzed.
Heal your intellect Bo.
gray clouds,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
