Hi dmb, Are you sure that Pirsig did not mean Communism rather than Socialism? Socialism depends on an authoritarian government and the dictates of such a government in terms of what each person has to do. I am not sure why you would consider this to be more moral. Could you explain the the morality issue here using the tools of political science? Otherwise this just seems like nonsense.
I am not sure what is meant by Economics is nothing without values. What basic principles in the study of economics is this taken from? Could you provide the model from which you are working to make this statement? What branch of economics are you referring to? Would you also say that psychology is nothing without values? Political science? If so, then you will have to explain what you mean by values. There seems to be a tendency here to pretend that one is an economist or a political scientist. What authority does Pirsig have to make pronouncements in this field? Are his conclusions supported by other political scientists? Or is he talking about Socialism in a different way. I wonder what resources he used to arrive at his conclusions. Surely he must have done a lot of reading in the area of economics, but he never mentions it. Could you explain what background Pirsig has in this area such that you completely agree with what he pronounces? On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:15 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: dmb said to Jan: According to the MOQ, fame and fortune are social level values. According to the MOQ, our recent history is a clash of values, namely social level values as opposed to intellectual values. Jan replied: ...I don't have access to the english version, but if you look at ch 17 in LILA, about page 10 of the chapter, the text following after RMP citing E B White, you'll find that he (RMP) says something like this in english: "The MOQ gives the vocabulary. A free market is a dynamic institution. What people buy and sell, what people values, can never be included in an intellectual formula. Dynamic quality makes the market work. The market is perpetually in change and can never be predicted." Therefore, according to MOQ: Economics is nothing without values. I'd appreciate if someone could give me the correct sentences in english. dmb says: Here's the quote, along with some surrounding context. As you anyone can see, economics is central to the political clash between social and intellectual values. "That’s what neither the socialists nor the capitalists ever got figured out. From a static point of view, socialism is more moral than capitalism. It’s a higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That’s what gives socialism its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality. You go to any socialist city and it’s always a dull place because there’s little Dynamic Quality. On the other hand the conservatives who keep trumpeting about the virtues of free enterprise are normally just supporting their own self-interest. They are just doing the usual cover-up for the rich in their age-old exploitation of the poor. Some of them seem to sense there is also something mysteriously virtuous in a free enterprise system and you can see them struggling to put it into words but they don’t have the metaphysical vocabulary for it any more than the socialists do. The metaphysics of Quality provides the vocabulary. A free market is a Dynamic institution. What people buy and what people sell, in other words what people value, can never be contained by any intellectual formula. What makes the marketplace work is Dynamic Quality. The market is always changing and the direction of that change can never be predetermined. The Metaphysics of Quality says the free market makes everybody richer by preventing static economic patterns for setting in and stagnating economic growth. That is the reason major capitalist economies of the world have done so much better since World War II that the major socialist economies. It is not that Victorian social economic patterns are more moral than socialist intellectual economic patterns. Quite the opposite. They are less moral as static patterns go. What makes the free-enterprise system superior is that the socialists, reasoning intelligently and objectively, have inadvertently closed the door to Dynamic Quality in the buying and selling of things. They closed it because the metaphysical structure of their objectivity never told them Dynamic Quality exists." (Lila, 17) Mark: Pirsig expresses a lot of opinions here as if he is angry at something. I do not see the intellect behind this paragraph. This sound like a political speech at some points. When he is speaking of static economic patterns he is referring to the intrusion of the intellect or government on the commercial trade of the US. This is a case of the intellect being a negative introduction. other relevant quotes from PIRSIG: "a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not." Mark: May I remind you of the state of France when Napoleon tried to do this? That situation was not superior to what was before. Maybe you could bring in some examples where this is true. It is fine to provide a quote, but you really need to support it, or else it is like gossip. "And this is a war in which intellect, to end the paralysis of society, has to know whose side it is on, and support that side, and never undercut it." Mark: I would have to ask who’s intellect? Isn’t it more often than not that the intellect is what causes paralysis of society? There are many examples here, just look at congress. How does the intellect decide which side it is on? Throughout the ages the intellect has done much damage. Perhaps you could explain this quote in more detail. As it is, it does not make any sense, given the history of man. "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." Mark: This is not true. Facism grew out of socialism. Have you not read on the history of Germany? Facism was a direct result of socialism. Socialism is all about control. This quote seems very misinformed if it is truly about the history of Germany. Is is supposed to be factual on these things, or is Pirsig just using those examples to present Quality. That is, is Pirsig using rhetoric or presenting fact? If it is fact, it seems very misinformed. Surely you have done research on this outside of what Pirsig has put on paper for rhetorical purposes. Pirsig is trying to describe Quality, not become a political scientist. Please do not use his quotes as fact that is just silly. Do some reading on this on your own and come up with your own conclusions based on what you know about Quality. You are making MoQ into some kind of reactionary revolutionary dogma. This is nuts! "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." Mark: Again, what references do you have for this quote. Is this really true just because Pirsig says it is? It sounds more like some random conjecturing. Where is your critical thinking? Hitler was involved in some very intellectual endeavors. It was such intellectualism (Darwinism) that led him to justify the superior race. It seems in this case intellectualism was the bad guy. His persecution of the intellectual was in order to maintain power, it had nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. This was the same reason Mao tried to destroy intellectuals, Power and control. I am not sure why Pirsig would bring the social and intellectual levels into this. Perhaps you can explain this. The New Deal by Roosevelt was all about social control. It put the social level above the intellectual level. Before that it was all about individual intelligence, after that it became about social pressures. If Pirsig is right about this, then Roosevelt was more anti-intellectual than Hitler. Again this quote does not make any sense if one looks at it critically. So, how does one support this quote so that it does not sound like the ravings of a mad man? How does one bring Quality into the picture, since this is the only reason Pirsig chooses these specific examples? "...In a subject-object understanding of the world these terms have no meaning. There is no such thing as "human rights." There is no such thing as moral reasonableness. There are subjects and objects and nothing else. Mark: This I really do not understand. On one side we have objects, and on the other side we have the subject who perceives the object. From the subject side (that which is not object) we find DQ, since the subject cannot be defined without making it into an object. Human rights are all about the subject, isn't it? Could you please explain what Pirsig means by this? What is there besides objects and that which is not an object? Is there a third thing besides SQ and DQ (I think there is, but not in the context of that quote). “..This soup of sentiments about logically nonexistent entities can be straightened out by the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs-society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent—these "human rights" are all intellect-vs-society issues. According to the Metaphysics of Quality these "human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a lower level of life. They are for real." \ Mark I do not think this is about the intellect vs society, for that would not make any sense, but perhaps I am wrong and you can explain why. Human rights are needed to build a society, not to destroy it. Unless one is free, there is no intellectual diversity, and a society dies. The intellect is meant to support a society, not destroy it. I do not see how he can possibly put society and intellect at odds here. It doesn't sound like a very logical division for antagonism. But like I said, perhaps you can explain this to me. What does he mean by evolution of a lower level of life to a higher level? Is he speaking of social evolution, or something biological where the intellect can create mutants of a higher level? QUOTES from Wikipedia: (Mark: (O boy, yippy! average age of contributors to Wiki is about 26. This means for somebody of 40 who contributes, he must be offset by somebody who is 12. Problem is, you can't tell who is the 40 year old and who is the 12 year old...) "Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible." "Anti-intellectualism is a common facet of totalitarian dictatorships to oppress political dissent. The Nazi party's populist rhetoric featured anti-intellectual rants as a common motif, including Adolf Hitler's political polemic, Mein Kampf." "Critics have alleged that much of the prevailing philosophy in American academia (i.e., postmodernism, poststructuralism, relativism) are anti-intellectual: 'The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time'.” Mark: As I pointed out in my response above, intellectualism in itself can be very destructive. The intelligent relies on ideals that are thought up. Many of these may not be based in reality but may sound intellectually appealing. The dominance of society by science is one dead end result of intelligence where everything becomes SQ. Intelligence can lead to the complete abolition of the subject in a subject-object relationship. Just look at the fall of spirituality. Pure intelligence is completely two dimensional and creates a superficial world of ideas. What may be more dangerous than anti-intellectualism is the idea that intelligence will solve all our problems. It hasn't done so in the past, and I do not see why it will in the future. The intellectual is the complete dominance of SQ. It throws DQ out the window and claims reality in the form of a model. This is indeed sad. But perhaps you can explain why the intellect is so grand. Perhaps you can balance the good decisions with the bad and see if the intellect comes out on the good side. I don't think it will. Just some easy questions for the brains of this group. 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
