Arlo,
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:49 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]>wrote: > [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. John: Exactly my whole point. The best social laws are those that are married to reason. That give intellectuals high social status. The worst social laws are those that are competitive with (divorced from) reason. Arlo: > 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. > > John: There is a certain denigration of social patterns at play here in you designation of social as religious. Are there not people who cling to Humanistic Atheism religiously? The philosopher/writer David Eherenfeld sure makes that point convincingly in his work, '' *The Arrogance of Humanism* And it could be argued that early religions were an attempt to abstract principles and give them labels that made up their world and gave the individual a broader context. Clinging to those outmoded superstitions is just as silly as clinging to outmoded scientific ideas (phlogoston) but how, in kind, is it really different than explaining "scientific truths" to sixth graders? So I don't care if the ideas are generated by intellectual hypothesis or religious revelation - if they are kept dogmatically after their outmoded, then they're social rather than intellectual. Arlo: > 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: The problem with philosophical terms that are vague is that nobody thinks THEIR intellectual control is onerous - its always the other guy. Imho, the expanded intellectual level includes an art-oriented mythos-making. We still suffer under a too limiting concept of intellect. > [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. > JohnC: My point up there Arlo, is that in it's context, social patterns are just as important as any other. I was trying to rectify the low regard that attaches to social patterns when they are equated with Religion, by a bunch of atheists. Humans are *the* social animal. And that's not a bad thing to be overcome but the underpinning of all intellectual patterns to be recognized and analyzed critically - without all this baggage of "immorality" the MoQ attaches to levels lower than the 4th. For instance, aren't academic standards themselves a form of social patterning? Intellectuals form societies. That's a fact, not a bad thing to be overcome. Arlo: > "Anti-intellectualism" would claim that these checks and balances be > determined by social convention. JohnC: Not just anti-intellectualism. For instance, intellectual societies demand that your intellectual offerings be of a certain kind, in order to be admitted to their particular brand of "intellect". Social conventions, when the society in question is made of intellectuals, IS the determining factor of whether any certain intellectual pattern will live or die. Arlo: > 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. > Whose reason? whose intellect? Why those of the proper social origins of course. Harvard isn't the most intellectual spot on the planet - it's juast got a certain social weight behind its brand. To ignore the importance of society in all we do - even intellect, would be a grave mistake. JohnC 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
