Pretty much with Arlo here:
> [Arlo] > The MOQ originated out of a shared cultural milieu, involving the specific > historical-social patterns that made the dialogue possible. And suffering. Social suffering. All evolution is driven by suffering, right? So any anti-social reaction is perfectly natural, and perfectly social at the same time. Heck, tho, you know my stance. The individual is a social construct. > These include (but > are not limited to) Chris, Kant, the faculty at Montana and Chicago, > Poincare, > Einstein, Sidis, etc. They include those who made the storage and > transmissions > of encoded ideas possible, the transit structures that allowed Pirsig to > travel > from place to place. > > The MOQ originated out of this social reality, Right! But without some dynamic intellectual quality, this social reality would have produced something different - it often does! So while I agree that the MoQ "rests upon" this social reality, I agree with Platt that the combination of same social reality is not responsible for the MoQ. Any more than tossing a bunch of molecules together eventually produces life. Guidance and intention must be applied to social patterns, and that higher thinking guidance is an intellectual phenomena. Right? > it would not have been possible > without it. Undoubtedly true. Just as biology rests upon non-living chemical processes. What makes the intellectual or 4th level of evolutionary being, interesting in my book, is that when it comes down to it, it's driving forces are pretty much the same as the third-level social drives. Intellect wants acceptance and congruence - social things! and values consensus or agreement more than "truth" - in fact defines truth by social acceptance. I'd say the difference in immoral and moral behavior at this point, is where your values derive from. If you are a crowd-pleaser, wanting to be popular more than you care about right and wrong, then you're leaning upon immoral third-level considerations. But if you care more about being right than being popular, then it's moral, even though with that intention you still want congruence and acceptance of your ideas. > As always, you are falsely seeing "individuals" are "social > activity" as oppositional forces. Instead, when one sees Pirsig as an > "individual acting within a social context" one sees that Pirsig appraisal > that > intellectual pattern emerge from social pattern not biology is a better one > than you are offering in response. Is that what Platt's doing? I'm not sure, but then you have your history, your own unique narrative with Platt. Lucky you! John 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
