>>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).
Yes. This is quite interesting - the period when the Early-Modern state emerges is quite clearly a period where the state gains control- and indeed is formed at all - but is this a strengthening of social patterns or of intellectual patterns? The development is of course a response to DQ, but also, I think this is one of those times that social vales and intellectual values is not in a state of real war. They seem to be working together. I mean, we can all see examples of one kind of society overcoming another kind, merely because it was more dynamic - there doesn't have to be any trace of rationality involved - and this could have been a inter-level affair (so to speak). But it wasn't. Because at the same time this new way of social control developed, at the same time, intellectual thoughts were flourishing - and affecting the social development! It was more like a symbiosis at this time perhaps - both social patterns of value and intellectual patterns of value were strengthened in the early stages of development of the early-modern state (talking mostly about northern Europe here) - but of course, soon they would come in conflict again. Thinking aloud here in a way. This needs to be investigated further I feel. >> 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? A very good question, perhaps a new thread on this? If anyone would follow in it... :P > 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 Couldn't agree more. 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/
