Hi Platt
19 July you wrote:
> I find it puzzling that in both Arlo's and DMB's answers to Mati's
> questions that there is nary a mention of the moral codes that Pirsig
> says are the defining characteristics of the levels. It seems both
> have ignored the basic premise of the MOQ that the world -- at each and
> every level -- is a moral order, and that a significant problem with
> today's scientifically dominated S-O intellect is its complete moral
> blindness. If cognitive abstractions alone are the defining
> characteristics of the intellectual level, then we have a problem -- as
> Pirsig explained:
I agree generally with you and have often said that the "negative"
view of the levels best shows their struggle (the moral codes). You
quoted a LILA passage that concerns the social-intellectual one.
"Morals can't function normally because morals have been
declared intellectually illegal by the subject-object
metaphysics that dominates present social thought. These
subject-object patterns were never designed for the job of
governing society.
I agree with this too in general but I don't understand why Pirsig
presents SOM as a villain that has invaded intellect and now
"..dominates present social thought". Again it's intellect as a whole
that dominates society and consequently INTELLECT IS SOM, every
last bit of it.
The passage goes on:
They're not doing it. When they're put in the position of
controlling society, of setting moral standards and declaring
values, and when they then declare that there are no values
and no morals, the result isn't progress. The result is social
catastrophe.
Still agreement, but all levels are "on top of" the former level(s)
thus all social patterns - "police" for instance - are found in intellect-
steeped cultures too, but under intellectual control. This control may
have paralyzed law and order to some degree (what Pirsig laments)
Professors claiming that the criminals are helpless victims of genes
(intellect's "O") or of upbringing (its "S") ...you know.
It's this intellectual pattern of amoral "objectivity" that is to
blame for the social deterioration of America, because it has
undermined the static social values necessary to prevent
deterioration. In its condemnation of social repression as the
enemy of liberty, it has never come forth with a single moral
principle that distinguishes a Galileo fitting social repression
from a common criminal fighting social repression. It has, as a
result, been the champion of both. That's the root of the
problem." (Lila, 24)
Pirsig's hope is that the MOQ by its moral level system will bring
about a permanent "armistice" between intellect and society. But that
won't happen by intellect being revised - its a static level and can't
change its spots, only by the MOQ controlling intellect.
BTW
There is an almost identical passage in LILA (page from LILA
(page 312)
Phædrus thought that a Metaphysics of Quality could be a
replacement for the paralyzing intellectual system that is
allowing all this destruction to go unchecked. The paralysis of
America is a paralysis of moral patterns. Morals can't function
normally because morals have been declared intellectually
illegal by the subject-object metaphysics that dominates
present social thought. These subject-object patterns were
never designed for the job of governing society.
LILA got some bad reviews due to this because it (from intellect)
looked like it prescribed some "back to the future" remedies.
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/
