Greetings,
Why not compose another letter to RMP? Ask him straight on. If
nothing else, maybe in composing such a letter some insight will
shine through.
Marsha
At 05:25 AM 11/28/2008, you wrote:
Ian, responding to Bodvar having made this a separate thread.
You're right, this is a biggy.
Ian
Andre:
Bodvar argues ( I do not want to miss represent you) that there is something
not quite right at the intellectual level (to put it mildly). Here I just
want to throw in my bit so please bear with me.
If the intellectual level is 'confined' to the 'skilled manipulation of
abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which
behave according to rules of their own' (this points indeed to math, logic,
computer programming etc) but my question is: 'What are we then
intellectualising about? what the fuck (pardon me) is going on here? Are we
intellectualising about intellectualising or are we intellectualising about
learning to understand inorganic, organic and social PoV's?...and at the
intellectual level trying to dominate/control these? Where is the
connection?
Looking at it from this point of view, every level 'below' the intellectual
is, through this process 'objectified' (and by this I mean, made into a
thing, an object). Isn't this process the very thing Pirsig had identified
as being the cause of this modern day rust-belt?
'These subject-object patterns (he refers to SOM as the 'paralysing
intellectual system) were never designed for the job of governing society.
They're not doing it....It's this intellectual pattern of amoral
'objectivity' that is to blame because it has undermined the static social
values necessary to prevent deterioration (Lila p312).
Is this pointing to a 'split' (if you like) in the intellectual approach? A
different way of thinking when confronted with 'objects' (SOM land) and
'subjects (MoQ land)? And Pirsig condemming SOM's 'approach' and instead
proposing the MoQ 'approach'( i.e do think about all patterns as morality in
a moral way)??
If YES, then why reduce the intellectual level to be restricted to
the manipulation of abstract symbols which, as I argue (has the, perhaps,
unintended consequences/side effects of/ SOM effects!) treating all 'lower
levels' as (moral) objects? ( e.g. human beings turned into patients,
consumers, economic units? I realise this occurs at the social level but can
you follow what I am getting at?) .
What is wrong with my reasoning that leads to this conclusion?
If the MoQ posits that socialism is morally better than capitalism because
it is an 'intellectually guided society', and I see everywhere around me
people being treated as objects (by this system called socialism) ...this
idea...not killing them (well,,they do but that occurs everywhere else as
well and is , here, beside the point) ..stifling them...not allowing them to
express themselves as human beings. Is this what the MoQ proposes? I doubt
it very much. But here lies, for me, a big discrepancy which, as far as my
reading goes, re the intellectual level, is not resolved and I may add
reinforces Bodvar's SOL theory.
For what it is worth.
Andre
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/
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
