Hi Bo, 
 
> 14 Feb. Ian wrote:
> 
> > Interesting Bo and Platt, (and Arlo & Ron et al) That you both pick up on
> > this "individuality" aspect of the intellect distinction from the social
> > .... attractive I'll agree, 
> 
> The finer points tend to be overlooked, and my "in a sense" 
> obviously suffered that fate. What I meant was that from within 
> the intellectual level (SOM) the individual, its rights, freedom, 
> worth is adamant, and saving this requires OBJECTIVITY. What 
> threatens this is society's bigotry, conformity, prejudice i.e: 
> SUBJECTIVITY.
 
> But intellect is a MOQ level, not a static intellectual pattern, and 
> from the MOQ seen a different picture is revealed. The dreaded 
> "society" is a value level - intellect's necessary base - but as the 
> upper level regards the lower as its natural born enemy this 
> strained relationship occurs.  
> 
> Again, it was not the individual that rose above the social level 
> (it's a fallout) but OBJECTIVITY in the form of truth versus 
> opinion. This dichotomy developed as described in ZAMM into 
> the full-fledged SOM that dominated the Western culture until the 
> MOQ arrived, but SOM's tentacles are tough and all resistance to 
> the SOL are efforts to keep the MOQ a SOM sub-set. 

True enough, but would you not agree that someone (an individual) had to be 
first in putting truth above opinion and starting objectivity on the road 
to becoming the dominant way of thinking?
 
> Ian concluded:
> > but as I've mentioned as an aside in dozens of these intellectual level
> > debates recently .... haven't we concluded previously that this is a wrong
> > or misleading direction ? 
> 
> Intellect as "individual vs society"  is misleading from MOQ's 
> point of view and that is what we are here to promote. I agree 
> dear Ian ... if I have got your finer points ;-) 

The story of the brujo that Pirsig spends a lot of time on is an emblematic 
case of the individual vs. society -- plus in a later chapter he describes 
the role of individual contrarians who alone are responsible for changing 
static social patterns of conformity. What's puzzling is how the word 
"individual" seems to raise hackles when the MOQ itself was created in the 
fertile brain of an individual named Robert Pirsig, not some amorphous, 
fictional "collective mind." Pirsig himself is a contrarian of the first 
order whose ideas go completely against the grain of current cultural 
consensus. In fact, the main character in his novel "Lila" is a "loner" 
like him. Celebrating the individual is a major theme of his work.    

Best,
Platt

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/

Reply via email to