Hi there Ngriffis There are conflicts between all levels. Biological-Physical, Social-Biological, Social-Intellectual etc.
The important thing is to see how patterns are set by solving these kinds of conflicts in the long run. At the moment these kind of conflicts can be quite violent but in the long run a pattern have to find a solution that works well over time. Victorian or Bhagwan sexual moral works well for a short period but in the long run the ultimate pattern has to work pragmatically better to survive. With the nature of the level and not against it. Jan-Anders > 18 mar 2015 kl. 20:15 skrev ngriffis <[email protected]>: > > > > "Marcus was considered a stoic philosopher and stoicism has Platonic roots, > I believe. The passions are rejected. Pirsig, on the other hand, seems to > place more importance on emotion and feeling as a guiding principle toward > intellect." > > > > Ron has a good point. To my mind though, passions primarily come > from the "organic" level of MOQ and Pirsig was in agreement that passions > were of a lower order than societal and intellectual MOQ. I think our sexual > and survival based passions are hard wired into our genome for the most part > and can negatively conflict with the upper levels of the MOQ paradigm or can > be a positive to increasing quality of life. > > I believe Pirsig and Marcus Aurelius would be in agreement about the > passions. They both would accept human passions, just as long as they stayed > within the boundaries proscribed by the upper levels of MOQ, society and the > intellect. For Aurelius, passions were part of the nature of man. He said > that you are sinning, if you go against your true innate self which has been > created by the perfect numinous "Whole". I grant that Aurelius believed that > the passions should be controlled by the mind, especially if they led away > from the laws of society. Wouldn't that be Pirsig's position too, except, > Pirsig might use "the "static quality of society" rather than "the laws of > society"? Beyond this, here is where, I think, Pirsig has added value to our > philosophical models: Pirsig might affirm this control of passions aligned > to the static quality of society, but then he might go on to ask: Is there a > higher "dynamic" quality to be evolved to, one on the organic, societal and > intellectual levels that is of higher quality than the "static" quality we > now have? I think this was what Ron was getting at. Further, I think we are > seeing an example of this with what is now going on in our culture: the > recreating of society's laws in regards to same-gender marriages. People > are trying to change the laws of society to express what they hope to be a > new dynamic quality. We shall see. Pirsig pointed out that "Free Love" of > the 60's and the hope that it was a new social dynamic quality did not work > out so well. > > > > My take is that Pirsig and Aurelius are both for the rational mind > directing our thoughts, our passions and our acts so that they align > qualitatively with the "static" MOQ on all levels. Instead of emotion and > feeling, I might use "intuition" for that which supplants the rational mind > when it comes to going beyond the static and, hopefully, on to a new dynamic > MOQ for any of the four levels: inorganic, organic, social and intellectual. > (It occurs to me that I don't think much about seeking quality on the > inorganic level, perhaps because it seemingly has little to do with my own > life which, to my mind, starts with the organic level.) Feelings and > Intuition are creative forces. I suppose that is why we turn to the creative > among us for new evolutionary ideas of quality, that is our geniuses, our > artist, our philosophers, and writers. > > > > Finally, I admit to being a neophyte in the study of philosophy. > Pirsig brought me in to this subject and the waters just keep getting deeper > :) > > > > Ron talks about the Sophists. My first definition of sophist came > from reading Pirsig. A Sophist was a person who was a tricky fellow who used > words to deceive. Pirsig in his first novel "Motorcycle Maintenance", talked > about the Sophists being the good guys and being made out to be the bad by > other rival schools of philosophy. I am reading "The Trial of Socrates" by > I.F. Stone. I am not sure that I did not get this title from a reference in > Pirsig's "Lila". Anyway, Socrates is portrayed in that historian's, > seemingly very knowledgeable work, as someone who gave no answers but only > negated everyone else's point of view. Socrates and Plato both supported > Sparta's repressive governing model. Socrates did not believe in Athenian > democracy or in its' open and free society. He lectured the young of Athens > rich aristocratic youth on the benefits of the Spartan government and > against the Athenian model. In short, in my mind, Socrates went from the > hero/martyr I had thought him to be to an unenlightened ancient, someone who > was against personal freedoms and democratic government. I do not know if > Stone is totally incorrect in his portrayal of Socrates. I am sure that > Socrates had his other positive sides and contributions to society. > Nevertheless, Stone's book was certainly an interesting read to this > beginner. His last point of interest to me was that we should not remember > Socrates as a hero/martyr, but we should remember that the Athenians, > through fear of recent attacks on their democracy, transgressed their own > society's static quality of personal freedoms by condemning Socrates to > death (in this case: Socrates freedom of speech to attack Athenian > democracy). > > > > > > > > > > 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
