Hi DM, although as Bo points out the freedom vs static patterns aspect of what you said is kind of a truism ...
I think there is a point here, that explains why 3 and 4 are NOT two distinct levels each with their own static patterns and dynamic qualities. The social "level" is really the conservative / static patterns of what is a cultural (socio-intellectual) level. The intellectual "level" is really the freer more dynamic aspects of that same cultural (socio-intellectual) level. We have one level with SPOV's and DQ within it just like the other true levels. Ian On 2/3/08, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Bo > > I was thinking more about the sortr of radical changes the Left > wanted to make to society based on their intellectual critiques of > it and the potential greater freedoms they envisaged. > > I was wondering if in less radical times and a more conservative > social culture we think it is possible still to be as intellectually free > and explorative or if such a conservative culture necessarily > restricts intellectual development. Would it be possible to > imagine a socially conservative but intellectually rigorous and > explorative society-culture or is this implausible? > > David M > > > > Hi David M. > > > > On 2 Feb. u wrote: > > > >> I wonder as the 4th level needs to have the 3rd level > >> to exist would it be possible to have an intellectually > >> free, rich and open 4th level with a socially conservative > >> 3rd level? > > > > What a strange question! Much like asking if a free biological level > > would be possible with an inorganically "conservative" first. level? All > > static levels are conservative - that's their very purpose - and resist > > all > > efforts to escape their "gravity field". But existence's dynamic > > component never gives up so new levels grew out of the former. > > > > To your question. It's a MOQ tenet that the upper levels aren't free, but > > have their roots in the former, this goes for intellect too and in LILA > > Pirsig accuses science and/or knowledge of having forgotten their > > social roots and falsely believing themselves to be "free, rich and > > open". > > > > The reason for Pirsig not using the term "intellect" here is to avoid the > > SOL, he wanted intellect to be "open" to the MOQ and thus realize its > > social roots. This was a mistake. If the MOQ is an intellectual pattern it > > must have social roots too, and that is hasn't, it has intellectual > > roots - > > SOM roots - and these are behind your question. "Intellectually free" in > > your lingo means that one's thoughts are free . > > > > But there isn't freedom within the static range. At the social level > > "thoughts" are limited to the various social patterns, at the intellectual > > to the intellectual patterns - among those that of a "free, rich and open" > > mind that can contain all kinds of ideas. And when this mind is made > > into MOQ's 4th level, it (the MOQ) has become an "intellectual pattern" > > - a SOM pattern - and nothing is gained. . > > > > IMO > > > > 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/ > > > > > 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/ > 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/
