To all those who are Guilty of presuming: >From hardback LILA, page 163. "First there were the moral codes that established the supremacy of biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life - conventional morals like proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like. Third there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order - democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there is a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code." Pirsig doesn't specifically name the presumption of innocence on page 163, but I think its obvious that it fits with the other legal concepts he lists there. His examples show what to look for in discovering what values and levels are in conflict. Notice the social level's emphasis on the body - as in, drugs, murder, and adultery. Notice the intellectual level's emphasis on the mind - as in rational politics, formal legal protections, and a tolerance for practically any human discourse. As a student of history, I find it helps to ask about the age of the thing involved. It seems like the social patterns of value can be identified and differentiated from intellectual patterns of value by their persistence. You know, like the Ceaser, Czar, Kaiser idea. Since the social level preceeds the intellectual level on the evolutionary ladder, it also preceeded the intellect in time too. The social level existed before the intellect ever came along and evolved according to its own value system. And I think it is also important to remember that intellectual patterns can't effect that evolution. The intellect can't change these ancient social patterns any more than a society can change the organisms that live in it. Isn't it DQ that is really responsable for all evolution, and not static patterns? The higher level of values can't change the lower ones, they can only restrain, harness or otherwise manipulate them - which is like the difference between training a dog and turning it into a bunny. In spite of the restraints put on the Brujo by his society, I think Pirsig was generally saying that native Americans were more free and more in touch in DQ than their European counterparts. Their freedom-loving patterns of value were absorbed by the American mythos and logos. And so we hold these truths to be self-evident... endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and that AMONG THESE are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson only names three inalienable rights but they are AMONG others. The constitution names even more of theses certain rights in the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, but the same constitution also specifically says that the list is NOT to be considered complete. This forms a government that seems to respect the boundry between social and intellectual domains. It seems to respect the open-ended, dynamic and evolutionary nature of the intellect. It even refuses to name all of the rights, as if it were an ineffable mystery. And how similar is "self-evident" and "direct awareness"? OK, maybe I reach a little too far. LILA page 164 "Intellect is going its own way, and in doing so is at war with society, seeking to subjugate society, to put society under lock and key. An evolutionary morality says it is moral for intellect to do so, but it also contains a warning: Just as a society that weakens its people's physical health endanger it own stability, so does an intellectual pattern that weakens and destroys the health of its social base also endanger its own stability" Balance isn't a bad word to describe the relations between levels, but I think its more a matter of respect. If the U.S. Presidency is the same as all the various Ceasers, then we ought not dispose of that institution. The intellect can "subjugate" that underlying social pattern with election laws and term limits. But its repeated persistence in history demonstrates a reality that is, to a certain extent, beyond our control. We can tame it, but we can't kill it without "endangering our own stability". Makes radical revolution seem rather foolish, don't you think? Franz Kafka is spinning in his grave. As a principle, "Presumption of Guilt" is an exteme bias in favor of social values over intellectual values and is highly immoral. Such a society would be a nightmare for its citizens and I have no doubt that it would fail in the long run. David B. MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
