[MD] The MOQ and religions

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mary

31 Dec. u wrote:

> I'm catching up on a week's worth of posts, so I apologize if the next
> post I haven't read yet already says all this.

So much chaff and so little wheat ;-)

> Can the difference between the Social and Intellectual levels be
> characterized by what they are opposed to?  Could the Social level be
> defined as a set of patterns of value designed to dominate the urgings
> of the Biological level? 

That's exactly the way to look upon the levels' relationship with 
their parent and what Pirsig harps on; any level is a flight away 
from the confinements of the former. Regarding the socio-
biological the former is all about controlling the "frivolity" of the 
biology. Have you seen the "Discovery" (and such) scenes from 
the Serengeti Plains in Africa, the horrendous scenes when 
herds of animals are to cross a river with crocs ... etc. But 
biology gives a damn,  death is part of its cycle. Anyway its our 
social self that winces. So once upon a time DQ managed to 
free existence from this seeming meaningless waste and the 
new value stage's means of controlling biology was by way of 
forming societies (please don't compare this with "herds", 
"packs", "colonies" and such) with a greater cause that 
demanded control of its "members" freedom. We see this 
particularly in the later social constellations like the Semitic 
type of religions and their preoccupation with sex (proliferation) 
particularly Islam and its many prescription for female chastity.      

> Remember the Victorians?  To me, they were
> the archetype of the Social level.  They had brains identical to ours,
> capable of the same cognitive reasoning as our own, but chose to
> direct it toward a set of goals designed to reign in the basic human
> biological desires for sex, drugs, and rock and roll.  That was their
> mission.  

Spot on! Now the Victorian period was of course late in the true 
social era - its last stand perhaps - intellectual value had been 
chipping away at social value for centuries, but we see the 
social hang-up with chastity for women, always the women of 
course because they are the bearers of new life. And naturally 
no brain evolution has taken place, no such since the Homo 
Sapiens, so the intelligence (cognitive reasoning) is equal for 
all human beings.  

> The Intellectual level, on the other hand, could be defined as a set of
> patterns of value designed to overcome the strictures of the Social
> level.  Nothing about the workings of the brain have changed.  I am
> sure there were people engaged in Intellectual level patterns of value
> during the Victorian era, for instance, but they were not of sufficient
> number to reach critical mass and latch the Intellectual level into a
> new POV all it's own.

EXACTLY!!!! 

> When you think about it, there's a kind of odd kinship between the
> Biological and Intellectual levels too.  Both are opposed to Social
> level restrictions - just coming at it from different directions.  The
> Biological level says the Social level is bad because it prevents you
> from doing what feels good.  The Intellectual level says the Social
> level is bad because it prevents you from asking questions.

About Intellect joining forces with Biology to quell Society is 
what Pirsig writes about at length in LILA (the campus 
problems) Regarding Intellect's motives to do so (because 
society "prevents you from asking questions" ...?? Generally 
because all the level below's values are bad to the upper. 
Regarding Biology's ditto for hating society I agree, to the lower 
level the upper is a destroyer of VALUE generally. Then the 
million ... question is, will the MOQ join society to quell 
intellect? There are some level-like patterns that pops up 
regarding it MOQ and its parent SOM=Intellect, but because 
the MOQ is what sees these contexts, hopefully not.  

Keep thinking

Bodvar