Hey John,
Good points! I'm with you. In answer to "What are ya gonna do?"
those goats sound pretty good to me. Makes me wonder why there
hasn't been a culture built around goat herds. Compared to cows, pigs
and sheep, goats appear to be superior in many respects, although
goat steaks may not have the same appeal has T-bones. Ever have
a goat barbecue? Maybe we're missing something.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Carl" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:15 PM
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]
I try to not think S/O like but it's a losing battle. I'm surrounded by S/O
devotees.
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_World>
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]
I look forward to your further comments on the subject.
[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]
Like Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and it 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]
Back atcha.
[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
