On 21 Nov 2000, at 21:05, Richard Edgar wrote:
> Bo - I see what you mean and think we are both saying the same thing,
> but am not happy with you saying "the Intellectual level is
> inattentive because it is preoccupied with its parent level -
> society". As I look at things, the intellectual levels completely
> ignores the social level and believe it's attempts to undermine
> society are via the strategy of making it redundant rather than simply
> destroying its arguments. If i once again refer to my example of the
> law as a legal force, i believe the intellectual world now rewrites
> laws based on it's own interpretation of offences against organic
> systems rather than by tearing into societies old laws. I.E. it
> ignores what society wants and judges all cases on it's intellectual
> and organic values. In all courts today there are examples where the
> courts have gone completely against what a community wanted simply
> because the intellectual reasoning of societies case has been left
> wanting. So just to clarify, i don't think the intelle! ct is
> preoccupied with society, quite the opposite, i think intellect
> completely ignores society and is simply going about its own business
> of making society redundant.
Hi RED
I think we agree ...when we get our respective words sorted out.
OK, I accept that Intellect "completely ignores the social level" in
the sense that it doesn't acknowledge any social reality at all.Yes,
Intellect doesn't even acknowledge itself as a static (limited) reality:
It claims to be all of experience; "The Door of Perception" as
Huxley said. "Society" just an arbitrary collection of individuals.
> I agree until you say "Just horrible seen from Intellect: Duty from
> Society". I don't think the word horrible belongs in this sentence,
> if the suicide is from duty to social values then i don't think the
> intellect cares about this. imagine a serial criminal of the lowest
> order who decides to kill himself because he considers himself a
> danger to the rest of society. I don't think the intellect has a
> problem with this as by killing himself he is stopping himself from
> harming organic values such as life.
You put great emphasis on the Intellect-Biology "conspiracy" and
that's an important tenet of the MOQ, but the way Pirsig presents it
in LILA it isn't so much a concern for biological value as it helps in
Intellect's struggle with Society. "My enemy's enemy is my friend".
> i think intellect only has a
> problem with suicide when it is simply an act against organic or
> intellectual values. so killing yourself where you re posing no
> threat to anything else and where you can get help IS horrible to the
> intellectual value, but suicide for the preservation of society is NOT
> horrible to the intellect as this act protects the organic values of
> living beings.
A deep one this. Let me just repeat the fact that we humans are
(of) all levels and change dynamically between them, but the levels
are static. So the moment we accept ..."suicide for the
preservation of society" we are society-focussed, but when Intellect-
focused we wont grant Society any rights over the individual - even
if he/she is a criminal.
> Maybe I am not understanding you correctly but if I am, I completely
> disagree with you! Social law is created for the continuation of
> social values. Intellectual law is for the continuation of
> Intellectual values! If an intellectual law is passed that is harmful
> to society (for example the release of a serial criminal back into the
> community) then how can this law be classed as being the act OF
> society??? why would society harm itself like this?
OK. What I said about law being social sounds a bit categorical,
but as said: Each level is static and "ignore" its dependency upon
the parent level. However, the MOQ says that there IS dependency
and now we see the pattern: Intellect abhors (social) law "man is
born free ...etc) but it cannot escape its social roots and the result
is it has to influence the juridical system to achieve its goals.
Your example (the release of a dangerous criminal) is good, see
lower down.
> I agree that social value influences biological life but what you said
> a bit before seemed to suggest that society can influence intellect.
> surely you can't mean this? the only way society influences intellect
> is when we get close to election time and the intellectual politicians
> have to get votes from society (topical ;o) )
Did I say anything to that effect? Not in any other way than the
upper level is based on the lower and not completely free, but
Intellect's value will never be social value-influenced. Those two are
fire and water.
> Sorry, once again i have been unclear so ill try make myself better
> understood. consider, lets say, a murder that has been committed in a
> community. the community (a subgroup of society) will want the
> murderer either removed from the community or put to death (this is
> social law at work).
I agree particularly with the last line. Law's true nature is
punishment, retribution - an eye for an eye, and it's ridiculous to
watch how the intellectuals try to reform law to become
intellectually "house-trained". We have some really weird
arrangements here in Norway that I could rant about, but will
abstain.
> the lawyers for the defence however will argue
> that the murderer had an emotional motive and is repentant and should
> be allowed to live i the community when he is released and
> rehabilitated. in this example, we have the society law arguing for
> the concerns of society and on the other side, we have the defence
> lawyers arguing for the concerns of the individual and the intellect.
Right, but doesn't this really prove my point? The prosecution acts
on behalf of Society - the LAW - and the defence acts on behalf of
Intellect - the individual - and uses all available psycho-lingo to
sway the jury and judge who are of all levels and pliable.
> Unless the crime was SO abhorant to be undefendable, the defence
> lawyers will usually stop the man being put to death and will have him
> paroled within 20 years! The intellectual laws have made the social
> laws redundant in ths case! I hope i have made myself clearer this
> time.
No crime is undefendable - it seems. If the act is evil enough it is
madness and if mad one is sick, and a victim of a disease is
innocent. You don't blame one for contracting smallpox. I could
have gone on about this, but I think we agree?
An aside: Here in Norway it's been a "campaign" to make mental
disease more acceptable: It's SO common, but people are SO
prejudicial the pundits wails, but fail to see why this is so. I have
written a few newspaper articles about it to show the MOQ
explanation, but it's hopeless; Pirsig? The Metaphysics of
Quality?? The explanation is this Society/Intellect conflict, but it
only exists in the MOQ. The professionals are "intellect" when on
job concerned about moral exemption, but turn into Society as
soon as they leave the job, and when a little girl (f.ex) is raped and
killed they are just shocked and cry for revenge. How can the
affliction that makes an individual "amoral" ever become accepted?
They may as well ask for the moon. But in the SOM there is no
way to see this ...so it still goes on.
You made yourself very clear RED and it's been a pleasure (so far).
Thanks for reading
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
