[MD] Food for Thought

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
The problem is the MoQ "Social vs Intellectual" levels suddenly cease to be 
a useful distinction in what makes these (both intellectual) patterns high 
or low quality.

dmb says:
Why is the distinction suddenly not useful? Aside from the question of 
relative merit within the intellectual level, I don't really see a case 
against the distinction so much as a lot of confusion about it. On what 
basis, exactly, are you rejecting it? Isn't it just that you don't see it, 
right? You haven't really made a coherent case against it, have you? Or did 
I miss something?

Ian said:
...to DMB's chagrin, I've been 10 years on the quest, that falisfiable, 
objective, logical-postivist, reductionist, materialist view of "science" is 
not the definitve answer for the high-quality end of that scale - long 
before I'd heard of MoQ, or would give a theist or mystic even the time of 
day - it was just the best evolved answer to come out of the enlightenment.

dmb huh:
Huh? Are you equating the MOQ's intellectual level with logical postivism, 
reductionism and all that other nasty stuff? If so, maybe that is part of 
the reason the social-intellectual distinction isn't working for you. As I 
see it, the MOQ attacks this worldview as flawed and is designed to offer an 
expanded notion of rationality, one that is not in conflict with the claims 
of mystics.

Ian said:
...and I think the reason we keep drifting back to the social / collective 
vs individual / intellect confusion is precisely because the examination 
involves "self-conscious will" rather than "received authoritative wisdom". 
(Hence my dive down the free-will alley to avoid imposed authority.)

dmb says:
I think we keep drifting back to it because its a well-worn cold-war trope. 
Its a favorite of Ayn Randians and anti-communists everywhere. The rights of 
individuals is part of the principles of democracy, its the rugged 
individualism of the American cowboy and its central to all the hero myths 
of Pagan Europe too. Individuality is important for all kinds of reasons and 
it has a long, long history in our culture. We love the dragon slayers, 
quaterbacks and the fairest in the land. Unfortunatley, individuality has no 
relevance to the question. That's a different issue with complications of 
its own. I mean, are we really going to do well to examine one of the MOQ's 
key distinctions in terms of the subjective self? I mean, if individuality 
isn't seriously, heavily freighted with SOM assumptions, then nothing is. 
Isn't that conception of the self, as distinct from the world and society, 
the epitome of the problem with SOM? Isn't that pretty much the definition 
of alienation? Isn't that what got us in this mess in the first place? Well, 
perhaps I exaggerate the case, but surely that concept is tangled up in SOM.

Ian said:
The MoQ is still the right (static / dynamic) framework, and Quality the 
right (non-SOMist) metaphor, but there is definitely something "wrong" with 
levels 3 & 4.

dmb says:
Again, I'll ask you to be much, much more specific about what's "wrong". I 
haven't been able to detect an actual case against this distinction. I 
understand that you've rejected it, but don't have a clue as to the basis 
for that move.

Ian said to Arlo:
I think you're right to make the distinction between "a (conceptual) pattern 
believed", and the "belief (intentionality) in a pattern" - I think that's 
all the social (action) vs intellectual (thought) distinction is really 
about.

dmb says:
The difference between intellectual and social is the difference between 
thought and action? Man, I just don't get that. Aren't you just bringing the 
(irrelevant) mind/body problem in to complicate this? Unless action has to 
mean physical motion, it easy to assert that thought is a mode action. Ever 
notice that "thinking" is a verb, for example? The distinction between 
holding a belief and the belief itself seems to introduce a 
consciousness/content thing that just as bad. I mean, the MOQ's conception 
of the static self is not the subject who holds beliefs, but is constituted 
by those beliefs. I mean, I think the MOQ's conception of the little self 
says that consciousness is identical to content, although it sounds wierd to 
put it that way. Its more like they're not two different things. Again, SOM 
is sneaking in the back door here.

Arlo said:
.., but I don't think that its as simple as saying "social patterns are the 
result of authority". NASCAR, for example, is a good example of a social 
pattern. And yet it does not derive from authority. It results from 
individuals working collectively towards a specific activity (driving really 
fast in circles... and drinking beer.) So while social patterns are often 
governed by obedience to a social power structure, this isn't (as I see it) 
the key distinction between S/I patterns.

dmb says:
Well, its not simple but I think we can safely say that NASCAR is something 
like a bread and circus event. Its a socially acceptable way to be amused 
and distracted. And its no accident (pun intended) that there is a whole 
lotta flag waving at such events. A good Marxist could have a field day 
looking at the social function of such things. What is it Chomsky says about 
being a fan of professional sports? It teaches irrational attitudes of 
submission to authority. Been to a baseball game lately? The rituals of hero 
worship and nationalism run from beginning to end. If you don't see cops, 
soldiers and flags galore, an understudy was running the show that day. In a 
society as complex as ours, there are always going to be complicating 
factors. The cars parked in nearby lots are built of highly complex 
engineering principles and can only operate because of layers and layer of 
infrastructure and most people are just there to feel good and have a little 
fun. Its a biological thing too. But its not too hard to make a case that 
these sorts of things do serve a function on the social level even if the 
people in the seats don't see it that way. I think its also safe to say that 
NASCAR serves no intellectual purpose, even if the technological innovation 
made in auto racing have produced practical results too. But I suppose 
that's the purpose of being a race mechanic as opposed to being a fan in the 
seats or a viewer at home.

Arlo said:
Also, it suggests that "disobedience" is the earmark for "intellectual 
patterns". But I don't see that. Just try to disobey the law of gravity!

dmb says:
This is where I gotta step in a defend the principle of opposition. I 
suppose disobedience would be a species of this principle, unless its just a 
child's refusal or something. I mean, there is a section of Lila where 
Pirsig puts the distinction between the first and second levels in terms of 
gravity. Life, he says is opposed to the laws of inorganic nature. Its seeks 
to overcome them, exploit them for its own purposes. He says life could be 
defined by that which defies the law of gravity and inertia, or something 
like that. He doesn't mean that life can break the laws of nature, but 
locomotion and flight are ways to get around them, so to speak. This is a 
way to think about what it is that makes a level discrete and independent 
from its parent. In the same way, society can't defy or ignore the need for 
food and sex or the desire for power, but it can tame these demands, exploit 
them for its own purposes. And I'm just saying that a similar principle of 
oppostion applies to the relationship between the social and intellectual 
levels.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50,000 in Holiday 
cash from MSN today!  
http://www.msnholidaychallenge.com/index.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us