On Tuesday 11 March 2008 7:22 AM Arlo writes to Ron: <snip> "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived." (LILA) But the unavoidable cultural foundation of intellect does not mean we are simple social automatons. That is merely one view offered by the S/O fallacy. Man does have agency, but his agency does not run in opposition to these constraints, it is enabled by them. And this is the key to getting past this ridiculous S/O rhetoric of "lone man v. evil society". We are always, unavoidably, operating within a range of vision afforded and constrained by our lens. This lens may filter some things out, but it also enables us to see what we do see. One of the tremendous benefits to diversity is that we are given the opportunity to refocus our lens by seeing initially through a lens that is different from our own. This does not even have to be something so broad as the meeting of "east and west", but can involve encountering a sailing culture and suddenly being able to see the green flash of the sun. Because of man's agency, of course, even the meeting of two people is invariably a "clash of cultures" albeit often in very subtle ways (as opposed to the meeting of a western scientist with an aboriginal shaman). This gets into an idea of ever-decreasing circles in contrast to absolute dichotomies, and is (I believe) behind Pirsig's valuable recognition about what "we" are. "A culture of one. A culture is an evolved static pattern of quality capable of Dynamic change. That's what you are. That's the best definition of you that's ever been invented.You may think everything you say and everything you think is just you but actually the language you use and the values you have are the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution." (LILA) Hi Arlo and All, I want to add the other quote about CULTURE: ³The CULTURE in which we live, hands us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret experience with, and the concept of the primacy of subjects and objects is built right into these glasses.² I, also, want to avoid the S/O mechanical culture! IMO MOQ proposes a Mechanical/Conscious evolution to the intellectual level. I define the Social Level as evolution to the level of Consciousness or proprietary awareness. An evolution to a Mechanical/Conscious division for intellect follows. "A culture of one. A culture is an evolved static pattern of quality capable of Dynamic change. That's what you are. That's the best definition of you that's ever been invented. You may think everything you say and everything you think is just you but actually the language you use and the values you have are the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution." (LILA) Only Consciousness can overcome a tendency to the Mechanical interpretation found in Social politics over the centuries. Any development of Consciousness becomes Mechanical very early in the Social level since one who who feels empty will seek celebrity for leadership. Only a MOQ meta-level of Consciousness can sort out the Mechanical/Conscious pile of intellectual interpretations of an individual. SOM is unequal to the task since S is interpreted as beyond knowledge. Joe
On 3/11/08 7:22 AM, "Arlo Bensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Ron] > Cultivate individual awareness. Develop patterns of value separate > from society, for society may dictate those values without our direct > knowledge > > [Arlo] > I have to comment on this, Ron, because I think it reveals a > deep-rooted S/O fallacy of western culture. > > The social level is not a filter that distorts an otherwise "pure" > perception of "the world", it is the very lens which makes our > viewing the word "intellectually" possible. Certainly there are > constraints to this vision (there HAS to be!) but there is also > affordance. Some propose a MOQ that is simply > "inorganic-biological-intellectual" with social being an "evil" force > that interrupts or interferes with this process, a force to be > overcome or removed from the equation. > > But this is not Pirsig's MOQ. It is impossible to develop values > "separate from society". This is the "myth of independence" Pirsig > mentions in LILA. The social level is the foundation of our > intellect, not a corrupting element to be overcome. "Mental patterns > do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate out of > society." (LILA). > > Once one sees intellect as dialogic (derived from social > participation), one can see that the lens we assimilate does indeed > "direct our values without our direct knowledge" but that this is an > unavoidable correlate to the vision we acquire. We cannot have vision > without this lens, and so thinking about the constraints as somehow > "bad" misses the process completely. As Pirsig says of Descartes' > proclamation, "If Descartes had said, "The seventeenth century French > culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am," he would have > been correct." (LILA) > > "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived." (LILA) > > But the unavoidable cultural foundation of intellect does not mean we > are simple social automatons. That is merely one view offered by the > S/O fallacy. Man does have agency, but his agency does not run in > opposition to these constraints, it is enabled by them. And this is > the key to getting past this ridiculous S/O rhetoric of "lone man v. > evil society". We are always, unavoidably, operating within a range > of vision afforded and constrained by our lens. This lens may filter > some things out, but it also enables us to see what we do see. > > One of the tremendous benefits to diversity is that we are given the > opportunity to refocus our lens by seeing initially through a lens > that is different from our own. This does not even have to be > something so broad as the meeting of "east and west", but can involve > encountering a sailing culture and suddenly being able to see the > green flash of the sun. Because of man's agency, of course, even the > meeting of two people is invariably a "clash of cultures" albeit > often in very subtle ways (as opposed to the meeting of a western > scientist with an aboriginal shaman). > > This gets into an idea of ever-decreasing circles in contrast to > absolute dichotomies, and is (I believe) behind Pirsig's valuable > recognition about what "we" are. "A culture of one. A culture is an > evolved static pattern of quality capable of Dynamic change. That's > what you are. That's the best definition of you that's ever been > invented.You may think everything you say and everything you think is > just you but actually the language you use and the values you have > are the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution." (LILA) > > > > 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/
