> > > John: > > Well some of what I'm disparaging here Bo, is a rigid interpretation > > of the levels. I think the great value the MoQ provides is the > > analytic knife dividing up the elements. The next step of making > > these levels into simple 1-2-3-4 progressional hierarchical > > metaphysics... > > The MOQ postulates the DQ/SQ split, the four static levels, their > growth and spawning of the next, if this is rigid so be it. The MOQ isn't > the "anything goes" that Ron peddles. >
Bo, this is a revelation: you fear the chaotic "anything goes" freedom of a dynamic metaphysical system, don't you. What is becoming clear to me, is that YOU want it all tied up neatly in a 1-2-3-4 system that you can know, predict and control. "Hmmm... Interesting", says the doc, furrowing his brow and tapping his pen. He makes a few scratches and continues. "Tell me about your mother." > First a bit on intellect - the level - and Pirsig's on what its patterns > are, > namely "modernity" (science) Intellect is also art, painting, music, Zen and many other schools of high intellectual attainment that have NOTHING to do with SOM. > but also the political aspects of > democracy, human rights and -worth, "man born free" ..etc. This in > contrast to the social level's emphasis on "man" subbordinate to the > common cause. Politics is about as purely social as anything I can imagine. What are you talking about? You suffer greatly from what Jackie Kegely calls in her book (Genuine Individuals and Genuine Community: Towards a Roycean Public Philosophy) the dominant paradigm. And I'm convinced from her book that she's another who is wise to the game that SOM has played upon society. She attacks (or rather explicates Royce's attack) the view of the individual as a "reductionistic focus on the cognitive/intellectual, competitive, atomistic, individualistic self... a self-interested self who enters social relations contractually and who needs the skills and competence to play competitive games adequately in the real world. It is the rational economic self who sees rational individual behavior in terms of the highest payoff. Involved with this paradigm of self are two fundamental aspects of our contemporary ethos - proscentism (our preoccupation with the immediate) and ego-centrism - our preoccupation with self." And I would add in this forum's context, and chiming in with Steve earlier this morning, our preoccupation with pure-reason as intellect. Bo! > For instance when the Nazis emerged (according to > Pirsig it was social values' "last stand" in the West) it could not be > countered with democratic means - the West's intellectual values > "slipped" and it reverted to the same level as its foe where the > individual's duty is to fight and die. I'm going to go back to before the Nazis, with you on this one. For WW1 was the genesis of Germany's betrayal of civilization, and that betrayal began at the intellectual level. Society was not in charge, certain intellectual ideas in German philosophy took hold of the controls and manipulated the society into repressing all OTHER intellectual patterns. It wasn't simply society evolving these patterns by themselves, any more than inorganic molecules can organize themselves into a chemistry pattern. National Socialism was an outgrowth of an intellectually-oriented metaphysics. Read Allen Bloom's analysis if you don't understand. > Freedoms and the rights were > abandoned for the necessary war effort, the free press suddenly a > propaganda apparatus ... etc. However this was just temporary, once > the war was over intellect bounced back stronger than ever. > What a stew of contradiction you serve up. Intellect bouncing back. What? Was it hiding? Was nobody thinking for a while? Where does Intellect go after dark? Your charges of inconsistency and contradiction are starting to seem more and more like confessions to me. The usual path of creating the boogeyman and then blaming *him* for his scariness. > > "To go from intellectual" is not losing consciousness in moqspeak but > losing the ability to be objective. How it normally manifests, I'd say, is as an emotional response. To fall from intellectual objectivity means you are getting mad, or happy, or something that hasn't really been "thought" out yet. But, like when Phaedrus had a bad feeling after telling Bob Redford "yes", BEFORE he'd figured out any intellectual analysis - this "falling from intellect" is not automatically a "bad" thing. It's not immoral slipping from a higher value to a lower. Its DQ manifesting on a different level and getting the attention of intellect. A simplistic hierarchical analysis DOES NOT WORK. It's a kludge for kontrol freaks who like everything nice and laid out and simple. Intellectuals, in other words. when the wrench doesn't wrench, throw it away. > Likewise entetring the social is not > being wheeled off to a nursing home, but the reality where emotions > dominate. But upon sudden death it's straight back to basics. > > Rocks Rule! (my new moq motto) > The levels are a rise of the lower to a new "power". Biology is > "inorganic 2." Society is "biology 2." and intellect "society 2." ... or > "intellect=inorganic 4." is another way of seeing it. > If the relationship between the levels was as simple as the math you seem to regard it as, they couldn't each operate on their own, with completely different rules. Your oversimplification is an overcomplication in reality. > "primitive" man worked an average of 13 hours a week for his > > sustenance, whereas factory workers of the modern age have to do more > > AND if they are lucky, get a couple of weeks a year to fish and hunt > > (the "work", incidentally of this stupid primitive that you modern man > > disparages). > > This can be discussed for ever, yet no one actually opts for it. At least > you must admit that social existence was a step up from the biological. > Or do you prefer the "inorganic"? > Rocks Rule! Actually, in the hierarchy of the inorganic, ultimate Quality is energy. So I guess I'm actually a sun worshipper. My grannie's spinnin' in her grave. > Ron is the epitome of politness compared to the old days when - f.ex. > one Squonktail was around. > > Bodvar > > All men mellow with age, whereas women just get feistier. It's the great hormone switch. geez, I gotta run. Here comes my wife with a switch. 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/
