I think I agree with that entirely Platt, if I could just confirm one word ...
In the second para where you say - cultural immune system "of" ...
Are you referring to academes immunity defence system "against" ...
.... relativity and mulicuturalism ?
("Metastatic cancer" .... nice turn of phrase ... someone else said
"atrophied".)
Ian
On 7/21/08, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Bo,
>
> Agree with all. The challenge is how to get the MOQ to control S-O
> intellect. I fear that will never happen until it is understood that the
> universe is not amoral but rather a fundamental moral order progressing
> inexorably towards betterness.
>
> To your last sentence I would add Lila got some bad reviews because it ran
> smack up against the cultural immune system of moral relativity and
> multiculturalism that infects academe like a metastatic cancer.
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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/
> >
> 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/
