[John] First of all, "Intellectuals in charge" is a misnomer. [Arlo] Well, yes, but for a different reason. What's at issue is that social laws be subordinate to intellectual reason. In the past, that reason (although morally superior) was defective (according to Pirsig) for not acknowledging Quality. The failures of socialism (intellectual control over society) should not be taken as evidence that Pirsig would endorse a reversion to social (e.g., tradition, religious, economic) control (i.e., "law") dominance or fascism (social control over intellect). By "intellectuals in charge", we are simply advocating that social law be informed by reason, and when in conflict (free speech versus religious censorship) intellectual values trump social values.
Of course, caution must be made so that intellectual dominance does not suffocate Dynamic Quality, and a expanded reason (or "spirirationality", if I remember correctly) would certainly account for this. Our argument, the MOQ's (Pirsig's) argument is that the solution is to expand the intellectual level, not subvert it to social dominance. [John quotes Pirsig] "The Hippie revolution of the eighties was a moral revolution against both society and intellectuality." [Arlo] Right, but keep in mind that "intellectuality" in this context referred to an S/O dominant intellectual level. From LILA, "Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?" is the key question, and the one the Hippies were revolting against. So, yes, like the Hippies back in the sixties, you SHOULD revolt against BOTH society and intellectuality, and this is precisely what Pirsig offers with his MOQ, a path forward out of social and S/O-dominant intellect towards an expanded spiritual rationality. [John] Because freedom to eat your neighbor and breed with his wife is a bad thing. Humans always have at least some sort of social control upon their behavior. This is evident in every human group that science has uncovered. [Arlo] So you argument for why we should not be permitted biological freedom is that it can, potentially, lead to what you consider 'bad outcomes'. Why does this not apply to the social and intellectual levels? Aren't social laws (e.g. laws against speeding) designed to control social behavior to avoid 'bad outcomes'? Aren't academic standards promoting coherence designed to control intellectual behavior to avoid 'bad outcomes'? And, to extend this throughout the MOQ, don't we build buildings to withstand earthquakes (inorganic value patterns) to avoid 'bad outcomes'? We routinely place checks and balances into all four of the MOQ's moral levels because unrestricted activity (whether inorganic, biological, social or intellectual) leads towards chaos. Its a balance, always, to find enough checks and balances to preserve growth, but less than would stiffle or suffocate growth. "Anti-intellectualism" would claim that these checks and balances be determined by social convention. The MOQ argues (rightly) that these checks and balances be the product of reason and intellect, albeit it an expanded spiritual rationality, not an SOM-intellect. 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
