Hi Dan,
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > J: I would say intellect evolved through an artform. A fairly rigorous > > art, with sharply defined rules. But both art and intellect are best when > > they inform each other - ideas that are beautiful and works that are true. > > So informs, yes. But it goes both ways and Quality is in the balance. > > Dan: > I'll have to think about this a little more. It doesn't sound right, > somehow, but I can't quite put my finger on exactly why that is. > Let me put it a slightly different way, Dan. remember when the art teacher was so impressed by Phaedrus's "sculpture"? And yet Phdrs didn't see why? The classic seems dynamic to the romantic, and vice versa. But ultimately, the "realest" thing we can be sure of, is an aesthetic good - something that "feels" right. It has to be logical, of course. Anything illogical is bad thinking, but logic is like the law - a schoolmaster, and does not itself own the goal of it's own technique. But art, somehow, does. All logic came from a society that was following quality - what is good. Rhetoric is an art. Logic is a tool. > > > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Because biology reaches its limited form, it takes a radical step, > >> finding > >> > "Betterness" in repeating the process the protozoa 'discovered' in > >> > subsuming itself to membership in a metazoan society. > >> > >> Dan: > >> I would say that when we talk about the MOQ, social patterns are not > >> to be seen as a collection of biological patterns. To do so is to > >> create confusion. > >> > >> > > > > Jc: I think what you mean is that the pattern which guides the biological > > beings, is not biological itself, if you don't mind my rephrasing, I > > agree. But a pattern that guides, if it's at war, or in conflict with the > > level it is supposed to be guiding, there is a problem. > > Dan: > Well, that is not really what I meant. Robert mentioned protozoa > forming a metazoan society so I assumed he meant that as a social > pattern. Again, in the MOQ, a collection of biological patterns do not > form social patterns. > Jc: you can say just as much "molecules don't make people" but the truth is, they do. what is different from a mere assemblage of molecules, and those comprising the patterns of life, is more than molecules - it's certain patterns. But those patterns rely upon lower patterns, for their expression and very being so to denigrate the lower leves is as silly as a man denigrating his molecules. I know there is quite a lot of Christian philosophy, which does exactly that - hate the flesh. But I'd hope the Moq would be more enlightened. > You seem to be saying there are biological patterns that guide > biological beings yet they are not biological. Is that right? If so, > I'm not sure I follow. > Jc: no I'm saying that social patterns use bioligical patterns, for their being and expression. A bunch of biological beings do not alone make a society. But you can't have a society without a collection of biological beings. The lower levels can't compete with the higher - they comprise the higher, in a fashion of laddered nestings of meaning. You can't have the upper rungs, without the lower. > > > > Rob: > > > >> > >> > Society or community undertakes activities whose driver is "betterness" > >> > too. Certain aspects of biological quality are discovered to be > >> > antithetical to social quality. > >> > > > > Jc: Antithetical? It seems to me that society values the biological > > success of it's members, so in the long run there's very little in > > biological patterns which is anti-thetical to social rules. Biological > > needs such as shelter and food and procreation, are all provided more amply > > by a successful society, than they are with a biological individual alone. > > Or we woudn't have banded together in the first place. > > Dan: > Our entire judicial and prison system is set up to restrict certain > biological activities (sex, drugs, murder, rape, etc.) which are > antithetical to society. The police and army enforce social codes with > bullets and handcuffs. To believe we all live in yellow submarines of > harmony is disastrous. > Jc: Yes. Society is set up for the biological good of the whole, over the wrong-headed and self destructive tendencies of insane individuals. And we're not very good at telling the degenerates from the messiah's so we just lump them all in together. But this is not a war against life itself, or the patterns that make up life. Life as a whole, is improved, with the curbing of the violent. This is not any sort of overthrowing of biology, it's guiding and informing - not competing. > > > > Rob: > > > > > >> Order seems to produce a stronger society. > >> > Hence disorder must be mitigated by law. > >> > >> Dan: > >> Social patterns make use of biological patterns the same way > >> biological patterns make use of inorganic patterns. > >> > >> > > Jc: Exactly. "make use of" not "compete with". > > Dan: > If someone or something was making use of you, controlling you, > dominating you, would you accept that? Or would you oppose it? > Jc: Well it all depends, I suppose. Were they doing a good job? Am I happy? Is life exactly what I want? Then I guess it wouldn't bother me that I was being controlled. I understand the point that nobody likes the feeling of knowingly being controlled, but that "knowing" is by some other. That is, it's a social knowing and metaphysics disposes of it handily if we need be. But your question begs too many different paths, like "opposition". If my opposition made any difference, then could it be said I was in fact, being controlled? And if my opposition didn't make any difference, whether I liked it or not, I was being controlled, then what pragmatic use is it worrying about it? So I guess it's nothing I worry about much. I'm not being controlled. I know it, because it "feels" that way. I don't see anything wrong with higher levels controlling lower. In fact, that is their prime function, if you think about it. > > > > > > Rob: > > > > > >> > > >> > If it's easy to see how these are related. It's harder to see the same > >> > process applied to 'Intellect'. > >> > > >> > My generation was not seeking to subvert 'Intellect' but to illuminate > >> it's > >> > excesses - that which threatened 'disorder' or 'Decay'. > >> > > >> > > > > > > Jc: Any criticism of intellect, is done intellectually because intellect > > is the art of criticism! So I don't see how social patterns possibly could > > "argue" with intellectual ones. The levels are mostly discrete. So I > > think, Rob, the generation of your day, identified with Orwell's Winston > > Smith, the individuals trapped in a world of SOM certainty - classical > > intellect as highest value. The MoI instead of the MoQ. > > Dan: > "They are discrete. They have very little to do with one another. > Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an > extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level > can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating > it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes." [Lila] Jc: Sure. I realize I'm arguing with the author's words. But is that a valid effort? I think Pirsig experienced more social conflict in his life than most people. His particular experience there isn't the best guide to universal rules. When you're talking about all of reality, fitting into 4 discrete levels, you can't say they are completely discrete, because everything is in intimate relation and while there is conflict and problems and pain, in the world, there is also support, and upholding, and caring and love. It takes intellectual love, to care about the intellectual paradigms of society and when the conflict comes - it comes between different patterns on the same level. We critique a society's metaphysics, intellectually. We oppose it's social expansions, socially. > > >John: > > And I often wonder, if it's snuck back through the door, with the way the > > MoQ has intellect as it's "highest value". I see the levels as holistic > > and relational rather than competitive and hierarchical. But I guess that > > makes me some kind of heretic so never mind. > > Dan: > Intellect is not the highest value in the MOQ. Jc: I realize that Dan, but how quickly it gets forgotten. The argument goes: since DQ is undefined, we can't really talk about it. Everything we do is static and therefore we are confined to static intellect, which is the 4th level - the highest. Intellect Uber Alles, I see it. And no, you're not guilty of it. But I could name half a dozen who are. > > > > > Rob: > > > > > >> > As intellect informs society so Art must inform intellect to midigate > >> it's > >> > destructive formations. > >> > >> > > Jc: That sounds absolutely right on. Excessive romantic quality calls for > > more classic and excessive classic requires an aesthetic intuitive leap out > > of the prison. It's an ongoing process of historical intellectual > > evolution. > > Dan: > I don't think Lila makes use of the romantic/classic split in the same > fashion that ZMM does. > Jc: You're right. And it's a shame, in my view. There is a dualistic aspect to human consciousness which begs for metaphysical explanation. > > > > > >> Dan: > >> I think this is not quite correct. The moral codes actively oppose one > >> another. Intellectual patterns do not seek to inform social patterns, > >> rather they oppose them. > > > > > > Jc: > > > > Dan, is NOT a heretic. :-) > > Dan: > If you mean that I don't seek to overlay my own values upon the MOQ, > you're probably right. Rather, I seek to understand the MOQ. > Jc: My purpose is to form my own views, out of experience entire. The MoQ is a tool, a good tool, that helps and informs my world view but Pirsig himself could never be captured by words set in stone. And Making the MoQ a static thing, is wrong to the point of evil. It's crucifying. Quality demands so much more, than just reading some books written in the context of the dark ages of American philosophical thought and pinning it to some Academic Board, like a dead butterfly. Screw that. > > > > Dan: > > > > > >> Remember the parties Phaedrus attended and > >> how all the intellectuals were rebelling against 'The Man'? > >> Similarly, the code of art would not inform intellect so much as it > >> would seek to usurp it. I don't see that artists are interested in the > >> mundane world. They seek to create something new, not to imitate... > >> sort of like the difference between philosophy and philosophology. > >> > >> > > Jc: I'm no longer so convinced that any of those dichotomies are > > necessarily opposed, and most especially the last two. > > Dan: > There is the studying of philosophy (philosophology) and there is > actively creating it. > Jc: Philosophy is nothing if not constantly reinterpreted and re-created throughout history. I think schools are no good at doing philosophy because it takes too much time and the right kind of atmosphere. That's probably why, academically speaking, they stick pretty much to philosophology. > >John: > > Philosophy and philosophology are intertwined throughout time. Philosophy > > is always as much in dialogue with its past, as it is in the present. > > Understanding how our thoughts became as they are, through the choices made > > before us, is fundamental to "knowing thyself". I admit they are slightly > > different, but they are both necessary. You can't have one without the > > other. > > Dan: > Sure you can. Anyone so inclined can study philosophy. > > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... > > oh... sorry... dozed off there for a minute... is there anything drier > than dead white guys holding forth? > > You see, not everyone can write about it with the skill of, say, a > Robert Pirsig. Jc: Sure, but you do have to have a certain level of background, to write with that skill. Do you think ZAMM would have had its impact, without that scene with the chairman? You have to know about Plate and Kant and the story of philosophy, in order to extend and participate. Otherwise you're just another back pack hippie, claiming some personal insight that nobody else gets or cares about. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > Atomic bombs are unhealthy for living things and living things are > >> valuable. > >> > >> Dan: > >> I think that depends upon the context. > > > > > > > > Jc: I think young Bob would have walked out of your classroom, Dan! You > > can't really argue or temporize "Atomic bombs are unhealthy for living > > things and living things are valuable" > > Dan: > Hey, if young Bob can find my classroom he's more than welcome to walk > out of it. I just hope the door doesn't hit him where the good lord > split him. > > Nothing is inherently evil just as nothing is inherently good. You can > choke to death on a saltine but they make a hell of a sardine > sandwich. Nothing inherently exists, so sure, I can't argue there. But we're all humans living on a planet, and down here, atomic bombs are bad news. Old Bob never got any wiser than young Bob on that question. Maybe it's been a while since the cold war and the threat of atomic bombs as an ever-present danger in the consciousness of society, but those bombs didn't go away. Ukraine turned all theirs over to Russia, in exchange for a guarantee of borders and look how well THAT went. We may see the threat reawakened in our lifetime and nobody sane thinks there's anything good about that. 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
