Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > 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.
May I suggest that so long as the 4th level (SOM) has no provision for morals it will never do a proper job of dominating the social level. I think Pirsig makes this clear in his critique of intellectually-guided socialism. Regards, Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
