Andre,
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > John to Andre: > > Intellectual patterns do not compete with social patterns and never have. > > Andre: > This just about summarizes your entire paragraph John and it's an > indication of a very confused understanding of the MoQ. How you can reach > such a conclusion is beyond me. And you maintain that you have a good > understanding of the MoQ? > J: I would say I have a good understanding of the confusion generated by the MoQ on this subject. I stand by my assertion that all competition is social. I don't see how you can get around that. But I note that you don't really try. Andre: > As Phaedrus, reflecting on what Rigel threw at him at breakfast, exclaims > in almost desperation: 'Where has he been during this whole century? That's > what this whole century's been about, this struggle between intellectual > and social patterns. That's the theme song of the twentieth century'(LILA > p168). > J: The only thing that intellect can possibly be (as a "higher power) is something beyond social value. "Things beyond" do not compete, they dominate. Intellect as a level doesn't compete with society as a level. That's just asinine. I interpret Pirsig's meaning here to be intellectually-oriented social patterns competing with religious-oriented societies but intellect alone does nothing but analyze and philosophize. Andre: > > But don't take my or Pirsig's word for it: > Look at what is happening in various parts of the Arab world. Look at what > is happening in the Ukraine at the moment. Look at what is happening in > various parts of Africa. Look at the underground movements in China and the > not-so-underground activities in other parts of S-E Asia. And let's not > forget by taking a critical look at what's happening in our own backyards > (eg intellectual values vs populism) > > John: Any "ism" is a social movement oriented toward that thing. There are societies which hold intellect as a very high value and there are societies that hold "the will of allah" as a very high value and these societies can be seen as intellect vs. society because that's the labels on the flags they fly. But this is not the same as intellectual forces struggling with social forces - the kind of intellect vs social struggle that Pirsig describes can only be within an individual. But when individuals join together we are in a social pattern again. And that is actually a good thing. The purpose of the 4th level isn't to overthrow the 3rd, it's to dynamically guide and create new social patterning. Maybe you don't realize this because Pirsig didn't explicitly say it, but its the truth. John: > 'that sounds right - "the highest inclusive". Note then that the highest > is not competitive with all the others nor antagonistic toward those > "below"'. > > Andre: > See my note above and look at the MoQ's take on evolutionary theory. As > Pirsig argues: 'Morality is not a simple set of rules. It's a very complex > struggle of conflicting patterns of values'...'This has been a century of > fantastic intellectual growth and fantastic social destruction. The only > question is how long this process can keep on'(LILA p 169) > > And you are suggesting that all is milk and honey between Lila, Rigel and > Phaedrus? C'mon John. I'm sorry but my impression is that you are very, > very confused about Pirsig's MoQ. > > I'm saying that every human is composed of 4 levels. Some people put more emphasis or importance on pure biological pleasure than intellectual wonderings, but it is not the levels themselves competeing or conflicting. Phaedrus's conflicts and harmonies with Lila were not levels clashing, they were people clashing. People with different priorities. Intellect alone is like the law of gravity with no one to believe in it. Nothing, non-existent. 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
