Hi Platt & John! Been away for a while charged with being on a committee to figure out how to bring quality to my workplace. Can you imagine? I'd love to discuss this with all you fine people in the discuss, but I can't figure out how to do that without getting 'discovered' - and I need this job.
Anyway, saw this one, John, and appreciate it! " We have equal rights, but that's not the same as being equally right." How about this corollary? We all equally have the right to be wrong. Hugs, Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. On Behalf Of John Carl > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:16 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual Level > > Hello Platt, > > I started this earlier, and got side-tracked a bit, and it goes on a > bit, > but then, that's me! > > > > > John: But according to the most eminent of scientists, philosophy is > dead. > > How would one address this conundrum? How can they be persuaded > > otherwise? > > > > [Platt]: > > I would ask the eminent scientist if he values his conclusion. > > > > John: > > Right! This ties in to something I've been pondering of Royce's > Loyalty to > Loyalty metaphysical stance. That's its very similar to Pirsig's > caring > about Quality. And what is Quality but caring? So caring about > caring, > loyalty to loyalty, same thing. > > Platt: > > But, what I think he really means in saying > > > philosophy is dead is that religion is dead because a Creator isn't > needed > > to > > explain the universe. It arouse spontaneously from nothing. To which > I > > would > > say, "Then nothing is really something." > > > > > John: > > Well fundamentally, I think there is an effort being made, that has > moral > roots. There was this whole dominance of culture by religion, for so > long, > that needed to be opposed, that science evolved a pragmatic way of > dealing > with that whole mess . Basically by positing a values-free cosmos. > But in > a way they've gotten blinders put on by their enemy. And science is > supposed to be about removing blinders. So they're sort of stuck. The > poor > dears. > > > > > > [Platt] > > I think the primary reason knowledge is social is because it's coded > in > > language which is social. > > > John: I got fascinated with goat keeping for a while. I picked up a > book > called "goatwalking" at the Nevada county fair one year, there was a > booth > from a school I'd heard a lot of good things - John Woolman School, a > Quaker > school, but liberally sprinkled with hippy children so prevalent in the > this > area in the 70's. Anyway, a teacher at that school had written a book > about > survival in the wilderness with goats. He said it was possible to live > off > the land in deserts, with no water, with just two milk goats per > person. > The man gets his water and nutrition from the goat, the goat gets hers > from > the browse and the desert morning dew. > > He was a very good writer. He'd also been instrumental in founding the > sanctuary movement of the reagan era, which had been a pre-cursor to > the > pain in the ass immigration problems of today, but the whole concept of > people who are uncontrollable, he called it, "going cimmaron" because > they > are mobile and self-sufficient and thus autonomous, stuck with me to > this > day. > > He had many interesting insights to share in that book. One was the > reflection that the first religious impulse of man, concerned his > offering > to God from two differing perspectives. Cain was a gardener, a tiller > of > the soil. A grower of things and a developer of real estate. Abel was > a > lazy-ass dreamer, a follower of sheep and did nothing to "earn" his > sustenance except leach off the benefits of mammalian ungulates. And > this > dichotomy, offer the only two ways we can be fed on this world- > agriculturally or hunter/gather/herder. And the interesting sting in > the > story, was that God prefered the lazy shepards to the industrious > tillers of > the soil. > > That bible! What a joke! > > But where were we? Oh yeah, the other thing I remember he said is that > goats follow the herd leader. They browse on what the herd queen > shows. > He's had experience of goats marching past rose bushes, ( a goat > favorite) > on their way to the place that the herd queen showed them. This is > socially > transmitted knowledge, with no language except body- language > necessary. > > But this is herd knowledge, not individual knowledge. > > Here's the thing with knowledge. Until it's communicated, any > knowledge or > any word is meaningless. For a word to be meaningful, there must be a > speaker, and a hearer. If "in the beginning was the word" means what I > think > it means, then relationship itself, is fundamental to reality. > > > Platt: > > > > But, truth is tricky. At one time the social > > construct was that the earth was flat. Not true. Today, the social > > construct is > > that values are subjective. Not true. So I don't believe in the > collective > > wisdom of individual ignorance. > > > > > John: And I agree completely, of course. There's something about > truth > that compels past popularity. But there is social agreement apart from > popular crowds, as well. A small community of consensus and > reinforcement > must be there to keep any individual with excellent ideas going. In > fact, > it seems for full quality to be realized, the balance between > popularity and > obscurity has to be just right. An almost impossible task in today's > media-frenzied feed-back loops and why we see so little true Arete in > our > leaders. > > > > > > [Platt] > > The problem I have is one man's idea intellectual quality is another > man's > > claptrap. > > > John: Well you have to make value judgments about men. Men might all > have > been created equal, but they don't turn out that way. A low quality > person's ideas about "intellectual quality" don't matter as much to me > as a > person I'd deem high quality. It seems to me that a sort of "jesus > loves > everybody" bland religous teaching has permeated our secular culture in > unhealthy ways. We have equal rights, but that's not the same as being > equally right. > > > Platt: > > > > > Science thinks it has a monopoly on intellectual quality, but what > > scientific theory tells us freedom of religion is an individual > right? > > > John: > > It is particularly infuriating because of the self-confidence. Science > should rather be honestly uncertain, than dogmatically attached. > > > Platt: > > > > Here on > > this site there's a lot of what might be called intellectual quality > that > > strives for agreement but fails, like the MOQ's intellectual level > > belonging > > to SOM alone. > > > > John: > > Well I am encouraged to think of it as an infinite process. Royce has > been > a help there. And there are places in my thinking that I've adapted > and > changed because of arguments presented here, and I'm sure you can say > the > same. So if you're getting somewhere, you can take the eventual > destination > on faith somewhat. As a shared given. > > For me, it's plain that the 4th level represents something special - > man's > thinking prowess, however you want to define it, is a unique phenomena > in > our wide-ranging explorations of the universe. A Subject/Object > metaphysics > just isn't big enough to contain all we know and understand of the > world as > we find it. "No serious thinker holds the view for long." Says Royce, > and > yet you hold it Platt. And you are obviously a serious thinker. How > can > you hold this view for so long? > > I'm guessing, just to get a reaction. Your specialty, imo. > > Platt: > > > > Anyway I'm suspicious of establishing truth by poll. I think > > social agreement often gets in the way of DQ. New ideas have a hard > time > > getting accepted. The brujo, for example, took a beating from his > society. > > History is moved forward by one man with an idea,. like Ghandi and > King. > > But > > you're right about social change ultimately needing social approval. > > > > John: > > I've been thinking about this since I read part of a book called, > Fifteen > Decisive Battles of the World, the first battle mentioned was Marathon. > I > started to describe it to you, but decided to do that in another > thread. > Besides, it's fairly well know book and you might have already read it. > > It's even got it's own wiki > page<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_W > orld> > . > > The author makes an awfully interesting point about the way intellect > influences social changes in that book. Hopefully I'll expand on this a > bit > sometime. > > > > > [Platt] > > "Objectifying the subject" strikes me as still being SOM. > > > > John: > > I agree, if any stopping place is conceived. As an ongoing process, > however, I think it transcend's SOM. > > For one thing, as I think Borge's reference to the self-referential map > problem points out, any reference to the territory must include > itself, and > thus the need for an ongoing new map. A problem of infinite regress. > > that we can't ultimately objectify ourselves - that "know thyself" is > an > infinite process - does not detract us from engaging in that process > and > realizing that that process, IS us. > > Platt: > > > > "Valuing the subject" > > is transcending SOM. But, by being "glib" I think you're on the right > > track. > > When Pirsig writes stuff like "Quality has Lila." he's being glib, > but > > profound > > at the same time. Maybe I'm just partial to glibness, like "Science > can't > > explain why it is good," "Feelings won't feed the baby," and "No one > is > > obliged > > to understand anything." Most "intellectual" prose has too much > popcorn > > surrounding the nugget of knowledge it offers. My motto: "Tell me > quick and > > tell me true, otherwise, the hell with you." > > > > > John: > > You got good mottos, Platt. why I love you, no doubt. > > > > > > > [Platt] > > Not a tricky dance to me. I just remember that every new regulation > is > > another > > chink out of individual freedom to choose. Now it's gotten so bad > they are > > starting to tell us what we can and cannot eat. Little by little, > step by > > step, > > freedom is eroded. Of course, it's always for our own good. > Authoritarians > > always know best, whether parents, professors or politicians. > > > > John: There's a trend, it seems. The trend has to do with > technological > power. The more technological power man has, the more he has to be > regulated. Man's technological power is constantly increasing, > (moore's > law, et al) so the regulation of man has to keep pace. > > And yeah, it gives me the shivers too. > > But what are ya gonna do? Live on the land and ignore the bastard's > rules? > > > Hey, I'm tryin' Platt. I'll let you know how it works out. > > 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 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
