Hi Mary
Comments follow:
On 21/03/2010 15:35, Mary wrote:
Some quotes from Lila for Horse...
. Is society
going to dominate intellect or is intellect going to dominate society? And
if society wins, what's going to be left of intellect? And if intellect
wins what's going to be left of society?
. Intellect is
not an extension of society any more than society is an extension of
biology. Intellect is going its own way, and in doing so is at war with
society, seeking to subjugate society
Ch 21
Once intellect has been let out of the bottle of social restraint,
it is almost impossible to put it back in again. And it is immoral to try.
A society that tries to restrain the truth for its own purposes is a lower
form of evolution than a truth that restrains society for its own purposes.
Ch 22
When the social climate changes from
preposterous social restraint of all intellect to a relative abandonment of
all social patterns, the result is a hurricane of social forces. That
hurricane is the history of the twentieth century.
, the day Socrates died to establish the independence
of intellectual patterns from their social origins. Or the day Descartes
decided to start with himself as an ultimate source of reality. These were
days of evolutionary transformation.
that if he had to pick one day when the shift from social
domination of intellect to intellectual domination of society took place,
he would pick November 11, 1918, Armistice Day, the end of World War I.
And if he had to pick one person who symbolized this shift more than any
other, he would have picked President Woodrow Wilson.
The picture of him Phædrus would have selected is one in which Wilson rides
through New York City in an open touring car, doffing the magnificent silk
hat that symbolized his high rank in Victorian society. For a cutline he
would select something from Wilson's penetrating speeches that symbolized
his high rank in the intellectual community: We must use our intelligence
to stop future war; social institutions can not be trusted to function
morally by themselves; they must be guided by intellect. Wilson belonged
in both worlds, Victorian society and the new intellectual world of the
twentieth century: the only university professor ever to be elected
president of the United States.
New technology fueled the change.
. The mastery of all
these new changes was no longer dominated by social skills. It required a
technologically trained, analytic mind. A horse could be mastered if your
resolve was firm, your disposition pleasant and fear absent. The skills
required were biological and social. But handling the new technology was
something different. Personal biological and social qualities didn't make
any difference to machines.
The times were chaotic, but it was a chaos of social patterns only.
But it was only social value patterns being
destroyed by new intellectual formulations.
The events that excited people in the twenties were events that dramatized
the new dominance of intellect over society.
Literature emphasized the
struggle of the noble, free-thinking individual against the crushing
oppression of evil social conformity. The Victorians were damned for their
narrow-mindedness, their social pretentiousness. The test of what was
good, of what had Quality, was no longer "Does it meet society's approval?"
but "Does it meet the approval of our intellect?"
It was this issue of intellect versus society that made the Scopes trial of
1925 such a journalistic sensation.
Only religious fanatics and ignorant Tennessee
hillbillies opposed the teaching of Evolution.
. Communism and socialism,
programs for intellectual control over society, were confronted by the
reactionary forces of fascism, a program for the social control of
intellect. Nowhere were the intellectuals more intense in their
determination to overthrow the old order.
Phædrus thought that no other historical or political analysis explains the
enormity of these forces as clearly as does the Metaphysics of Quality.
The gigantic power of socialism and fascism, which have overwhelmed this
century, is explained by a conflict of levels of evolution. This conflict
explains the driving force behind Hitler not as an insane search for power
but as an all-consuming glorification of social authority and hatred of
intellectualism. His anti-Semitism was fueled by anti-intellectualism.
His hatred of communists was fueled by anti-intellectualism. His
exaltation of the German volk was fueled by it. His fanatic persecution of
any kind of intellectual freedom was driven by it.
In the United States the economic and social upheaval was not so great as
in Europe, but Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, nevertheless, became
the center of a lesser storm between social and intellectual forces. The
New Deal was many things, but at the center of it all was the belief that
intellectual planning by the government was necessary for society to regain
its health.
The above show that Pirsig supports the moral hierarchy of the MoQ -
i.e. that Intellectual patterns of Value should dominate Social patterns
of Value. In the above, where is he showing support for Bo's idea that
the Intellectual level consists of purely Subjects and Objects?
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:14 AM from Horse
Hi Mary
The Intellectual Level is created by Intellectual Patterns of Value.
Not all Intellectual Pattens of Value are either subjects or objects.
[Mary Replies]
Hi Horse!
Speaking with absolute respectfulness and sincerity, you will have to
explain to me what Intellectual Patterns are not subjects or objects.
Seriously. I cannot think of any.
In the same spirit:
Zero
Infinity
while (1) {};
;)
This creates a problem for Bo so he has to try and re-classify those
Intellectual Patterns which are not S/O as Social Patterns.
[Mary Replies]
If you are referring to things like Buddhism, then you'll have to explain to
me how those differ from any other belief system, since we should be able to
agree that belief systems in general reside in the Social Level.
No. Belief systems are propagated through the Social level (as memes?) -
they do not originate at the Social level but at the Intellectual level
as ideas. There's a big difference.
Think in terms of networks and E.g. the TCP/IP stack (or the OSI model
if you prefer). How does an idea get from one person to another in terms
of static patterns of Value? Down the Value stack one side and up the
stack the other!
This creates all sorts of problems and results in a mangling of the MoQ
in order to accommodate Bo's ideas.
A Metaphysics is an Intellectual Pattern of Value and SOM is one of a
number of metaphysical systems (S/O, Process, Quality etc.- and this is
only the Western systems - there are plenty more Eastern based systems)
and all exist within the Intellectual level and are created by IPOV.
[Mary Replies]
Perhaps, but it could be argued that all Metaphysics is an attempt to
construct a belief system.
Then you need to be consistent in how you treat metaphysical systems -
in which case both S/O Metaphysics (SOM) and Quality Metaphysics (MoQ)
and other metaphysical systems are Social patterns of Value and the
Intellectual level disappears - this is the problem that occurs when you
mangle the MoQ as Bo does. When you consider metaphysics as Intellectual
patterns of Value the problem doesn't exist and the Intellectual level
is a sound platform for competing metaphysical systems. Which is most
useful at any given time (like polar co-ordinates) is based on context
and explanatory power.
Creating new levels for each metaphysics is absurd.
[Mary Replies]
I agree with that.
Good
Are you, like Bo, denying that those huge bodies of Eastern philosophy
(which are not SOM) are not Intellectual Patterns of Value when they
emerged without the benefit of SOM? Are you saying that all non-SOM
metaphysical systems are either variations of SOM or only exist at the
Social level?
[Mary Replies]
To clarify, I'd need you to name the Eastern philosophies you are referring
to so I could read about them, but in general I would say they are probably
Social Level POVs.
Google can provide you with what you need here - bearing in mind what
I've said above and the quotes that you have provided - especially the
quote regarding Woodrow Wilson. Read through that again and think about
it carefully.
Do you see where this is leading? Bo has to dismiss, deny or denigrate
everything that Pirsig has said which is/are counter to Bo's mistaken
notions - implying that Pirsig is so foolish and naive that he doesn't
even understand his own work!!!!
Additionally, he dishonestly claims that Pirsig pretty much agrees with
him that his pet theory is correct, even when Pirsig specifically
rejects this in the same letter!
[Mary Replies]
I love you and I love Bo. You are both what I consider to be old friends
from long ago. I think I see your point, though I don't really agree with
it, and I also see Bo's, though not in the same way Bo does.
Love you too Mary - and I still miss your Dad. I wonder what he would
have made of this conversation.
I don't recall Pirsig denouncing Eastern Philosophy in Lila. He basically
omitted the subject. He wrote a book targeting Western readers in a Western
context to challenge Western patterns of thought. He was being highly
critical of subject-object metaphysics - which is the entire basis for all
of Western science and Western religion. He does owe Eastern philosophy a
great debt. Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of Eastern
philosophy, he took it and ran with it.
Much of western science is based around the idea of materialism - which
relates to SOM. But not all western thinking is to do with science and
not all science is strictly SOM. Have you had a poke around Process
metaphysics? Very interesting and not very S/O oriented - it has a lot
more in common with MoQ than SOM.
The Metaphysics of Quality is something entirely new. A workable way to
modify SOM<for the Western mind> using Buddhism as its base. This became
clear to me reading Khoo's posts of the last month or so. That's not meant
to denigrate Pirsig's accomplishment at all! What he did was a gigantic
mental leap, one I think would only be possible for someone with a profound
understanding of both Eastern and Western philosophies. He is showing us a
way forward using the best of both worlds.
I'd agree with you here Mary and keep in mind that, in doing this,
Pirsig has specifically rejected Bo's SOL interpretation - and with good
reason. Contrary to what Bo would have you believe, Pirsig understands
his own work better than Bo and, in my opinion, Pirsig is where the
smart money's placed.
Best wishes,
Mary
Good to talk with you Mary
Take care
Horse
--
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an
attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine
in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what
a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson
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/md/archives.html
