Thanks Dave I liked that.
Our brains are all different, inorganically, organicallly, mentally and educationally. In Syria today, people get shot because they have another view on intellectual values. I think it's a bad method to solve the conflict. Dialogue, where both parts are talking AND listening is better. Jan-Anders "For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens at a distance." Leviathan ch XIII. 12 maj 2011 kl. 21.06 skrev [email protected]: > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:11:17 -0600 > From: david buchanan <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [MD] Keep on Duckin' > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Arlo said to Marsha: > .., intellect exists to free people from social chains. A MOQ recognizes the > necessity of maintaining a foundation, however, and not dismantling the > stable patterns of value that support the emerging agency made possible by > structure. ...But if you think the mouse or amoeba is somehow 'freer' than > you, less imprisoned, or otherwise unencumbered by chains, then by all means, > Marsha, I fully encourage you to abandon all patterns. > > > dmb says: > Well, I suppose it's futile to try to talk sense with a person with thinks > static patterns of quality are both ever-changing AND a kind of prison. It's > a cage made of clouds, apparently. It's like trying to discuss water with > someone who thinks ice is hot and steamy. Even Sarah Palin would blush at > this level of incoherence. > > In the MOQ, static patterns are not a prison. They are the world as we know > it, arranged in an evolutionary moral hierarchy. They are static patterns of > VALUE, of QUALITY. > Marsha had said:I not only agree with Mark that language is a kind of prison, > but I also think patterns are a kind of prison."To the extent that one's > behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. > But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, > one's behavior is free." [LILA} > > dmb says: > Yea, but in the very next line, Pirsig says, "The MOQ has much much more to > say about ethics, however, than simple resolution of the Free Will vs. > Determinism controversy. The MOQ says ..VALUE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL GROUND STUFF > OF THE WORLD..." (LILA 156) > He is saying "that not just life, but EVERYTHING, IS AN ETHICAL ACTIVITY" > (LILA 157) "What the evolutionary structure of the MOQ shows is that there is > not just one moral system. There are many." (LILA 158) "But in the MOQ all > these sets of morals, plus another Dynamic morality, are not only real, they > are the whole thing." (LILA 159) "A human being is a collection of ideas, and > these ideas take moral precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of > value. They are at a higher level of evolution than social patterns of > value." (LILA 160) "...: societies and thoughts and principles themselves are > no more than sets of static patterns. ...Does Lila have Quality? > ...Evolutionary morality just splits that whole question open like a > watermelon." (LILA 161) > Pirsig goes well beyond the free will thing and wholly rejects the SOM view > that morals are "just subjective. He puts traditional morals in perspective, > in a larger context, saying that it is a relatively narrow brand of morality > and largely represents the conflict between biological values and social > values. This expanded framework is used to answer the question of Lila's > Quality. It's used to describe the MOQ's conception of the self as a complex > ecology of static patterns, the constitution of which defines the limits of > one's ability to respond to DQ. And I think you can see by the continuous > page numbers that Pirsig is continuously expanding this ethical picture to > explain what he means by saying these sets of morals are not only real, they > are, along with DQ, the whole thing. > And that's what Mark and Marsha condemn as a kind of prison? That's a rather > ghastly reversal. What could be more starkly different than the MOQ's > assertion that life and everything else is an ethical activity? Static > patterns of quality are the bars of cage? Static patterns of value are > worthless? A species of the good is a kind of evil? Yea, well I guess that > goes along with saying static patterns are ever-changing and ice is defined > by its liquidity. But it's not just that it makes a huge mess of things > conceptually. It's not just incorrect or nonsensical, like saying two plus > two equals blew. It's also a moral nightmare. In the MOQ, > anti-intellectualism is a rejection of the highest level of static quality. > It is a condemnation of the most evolved set of moral patterns. It's wrong > both technically and ethically. > He finishes the chapter explaining that the whole 20th century has been a > "struggle between social and intellectual patterns". He's talking about > politics and war, religion and science, and the conventional realities right > here on earth. Many chapters are devoted to this kind of socio-political > discussions. It seems very hard to believe that Pirsig would spend all that > time developing a moral hierarchy and an ethical analysis just to condemn it > all. His root expansion of rationality was aimed at increasing the square > footage of his prison cell? Not likely. > No, this evolutionary morality is supposed to split the book's central > question open "like a watermelon". Lila does and does not have Quality. > Biologically, she does, but she's intellectually nowhere and pretty far down > the scale socially, Pirsig says. She's got the Dynamic thing going on, but in > a dangerous, unZen sort of way. Rigel is the social level prig and the the > captain is the intellectual. Rigel and the captain don't bomb each other's > cities, but we can see a personal version of the social-intellectual conflict > in their relationship, or lack thereof. > Is this not what the book is about? Lila gives us a full-blown set of ideas. > It's still built around the undefined DQ but it's also full of nuts and > bolts. It has a coherent structure and a point a purpose. It's hardly ever > appropriate to invoke "not this, not that" when we're talking metaphysics or > discussing a published text. Those things ARE intellectually knowable and > they are not supposed to be ineffable. 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
