Chris, Platt, all. 28 February you wrote:
> Arlo, Ian, Platt > Platt: > >Don't think that's true. I denounce the social pattern of big > >government but support many traditional social patterns like > >craftsmanship, self- reliance and self-responsibility. > I bet you did that long before you heard of the MOQ. We seem to live > in different worlds. Let me tell you one reason why I don't like the > "help-yourself" part of the American dream. For almost a thousand > years we in this northern corner of Europe- and far longer more to > the south - there was very weak social patterns, no institutions, no > real government: only warmongers and fuzzy honour-codes to keep people > in something akin to order. Self-reliance and self-responsibility was > all there was. I always listen when Chis gives history lessons and this is also valid stuff, just a comment regarding the term "weak social patterns". In this context he possibly means communities not sufficiently intellectually (rationally) run. In my opinion the more basic the community, the stronger the Q-social value. Family in the human ancestry type sense, klan, tribe are the oldest strongest and thus "best" social patterns. But intellect is better in the MOQ sense and a society overlaid by intellectual values is the best place to live. At least to an intellect-carrier (like Christoffer). > But new times came, development continued. From the time of the > Swedish Empire and until the 19th century, institutions continued to > grow strong, the governments ability to gain control continued as > well. However, This development didn't go towards a more totalitarian > state, but rather the opposite. In 1921 both men and women had the > right to vote, and it is now, when that happens that the government > may become a most efficient tool for the people. self- reliance and > self-responsibility is still important, and it always will. But the > people decided that if someone should fail, or if something should go > wrong, then there should be help to be gotten. The welfare-state. > Moreover, this is a quite intellectual reasoning that brings this about > - if there is generally less poverty and less fear of poverty in > society, why then society will be a safer place, and everybody can go > about their business more calmly. Yes, here Chris says the very same thing. This is an intellect- dominated "society". > Then put this into a MOQ context. I believe that what should be done is > to further the development of the intellectual level - I'm sure you > will agree - so, by using s somewhat utilitarian way of reasoning here: > if as many as possible may educate themselves as much as possible, that > will further the development of the intellectual level. So, back to my > original point: If we now have the state, and we can make it work for > us, both working as a frame for social patterns of value and, > furthering the development AND being controlled by - intellectual > patterns of value (reason) then why on earth should we not do so? What the MOQ adds is the dynamic aspect that Platt demonstrates by the LILA quotes (in his reply to this) But there is another question: What Chris correctly calls reason and the MOQ calls SOM - and SOL identifies with the intellectual level - has done its good job of dominating social value without "knowing" the level context. What will the effect of knowing this context have on intellect? In my opinion the SOL interpretation (the 4th. level=S/O distinction) is mandatory to prevent the MOQ becoming an anti- intellectual force, because it can't be swept under the carpet that Pirsig's tendency to presents intellect as an innocent beauty raped by "rationality" (science & knowledge) opens a dangerous route. It sounds as if intellect can be made good if the said patterns will be exposed as frauds, but these ARE the 4th. level and a rationality exposed as a fraud is no rationality. Intellect will be gone as and existence has dropped down to the social level. And there are passages in LILA that makes it sound as if the MOQ is anti-intellectual. With SOM (rationality, knowledge, science ..etc.) = the 4th. level, the MOQ tenet of the upper level being out of the former pose no argument against intellect as the highest static value and its moral superiority over social value is firmly established. 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/
