[MD] Food for Thought

[David M]

Hi DMB

Some interesting points. But what would a society
controlled by intellect look like compared
to now?

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Food for Thought


> Arlo said:
> To restate, I believe (social pattern) in the Law of Gravity (intellectual
> pattern). ...The "idea of god", then, is to me a low-quality intellectual
> pattern, for the reasons I've been working through with Craig, but I can't
> say that the "idea of god" is a social pattern, while other ideas are
> intellectual. You see? This is my problem with some of the terminology
> surrounding the S/I levels.
>
> dmb says:
> I've read all your posts in this thread and haven't seen any reference to
> the idea that the levels are to be distinquished by that principle of
> opposition. Its really the only idea I've put forward on the topic so far
> and yet it has been bypassed entirely. Its like everybody has rejected it,
> but without a word about as to why it has been rejected. Again, the idea 
> is
> simply that biological values are about controlling and overcoming the
> forces of nature while the social level values are aimed at controlling 
> and
> overcoming the forces of biology and the intellectual level is aimed at
> controlling and overcoming the forces of society. This principle of
> oppostion is framed in terms of evolutionary relationships, of course, and
> the basic idea here is that each level breaks free from the previous
> limitations and must in some sense oppose its parent level in order to
> achieve its own independence and to pursue a different kind of good, if 
> you
> will. I think your problem with the S/I terminology could be sorted out
> using this principle. Instead of making belief social and the ideas so
> believed intellectual, I think its much, much better to examine beliefs 
> and
> ideas in terms of their origins and purpose. Since these two top levels 
> are
> both what we'd normally think of as "mental", I don't think its useful to
> sort things out in terms of ideas and beliefs. I mean, the question is how
> do we distinquish social level beliefs and ideas with intellectual level
> beliefs and ideas. And it seems that we can't really sort things out by 
> the
> unqualified content because there are social level faith-based beliefs 
> about
> God and there are philosophical assertions about God too. Whitehead and
> Falwell have different beliefs on that topic, for example. Pirsig and the
> Pope differ with respect to God and mysticism and picking up bar ladies,
> etc..
>
> Ian said:
> I think the "authority is a social concept" .... is going to prove a key
> point. ...I think the key thing will prove to be whether the control /
> freedoms of those belief systems are phsyical (action by authority) or
> mental (communication).
>
> Arlo replied:
> I think this is perhaps similar to what I've been saying in 
> differentiating
> high and low quality intellectual ideas, rather than social and 
> intellectual
> "ideas". That is, intellectual patterns that depend on social force are
> low-quality intellectual patterns, because they suffocate DQ on the social
> level.
>
> dmb says:
> This, it seems to me, is exactly the sort of confusion that is supposed to
> be cleared up by the MOQ's distinctions. As the story goes, soldiers and
> policemen have always played a role in controlling the biological forces 
> and
> this sort of physical restraint is necessitated by the nature of the 
> forces
> being controlled by them, which are forces that can't be "talked" into
> compliance. This is the kind of "authority" that issues from the barrel of 
> a
> gun or the business end of a spear or whatever. But then, as history and
> cultural evolution procedes, the social level uses this same tatic to
> enforce the belief in certain dogmas and such. The social values that did 
> a
> tremendous job of creating a moral structure in which the organism could
> thrive becomes the oppressor of intellect rather than the protector 
> against
> savagery. The social level keeps on doing what it has always done and the
> confusion and horror we've witnessed in the last century or two is a 
> result
> of the fact that this function is an advantage when its directed at 
> thieves,
> murderers and rapists but it can't rightly be applied upward at the
> intellectual level. Social level values gave birth to the intellectual
> level, but sees it as a threat, not least of all because the flaw in it 
> has
> led to a situation where it has taken sides with biology. Hedonism and
> reactionary poliitical movements and other anti-intellectual impulses are
> also a result of the confusion. The MOQ is suppose to sort this out by
> showing that there is a point and a purpose to social level beliefs, by
> showing that its "authority", its use of physical restraint is highly 
> moral
> when directed at one thing and highly immoral when its directed at 
> another.
> The word "authority" can refer to state sanctioned violence AND to those
> with expertise in certain kinds of knowledge, in the way that Hawking is
> considered an "authority" on physics, for example. I suppose the apparent
> interchangability of this term only displays our confused conventional
> wisdom on the topic. But I think its pretty clear that tradition and
> empirical evidence constitute two entirely different kinds of authority.
> Nobody ever enforced the law of gravity with a gun nor has anyone served
> time for violating it. The rules of evidence are not designed to control
> biological forces, but rather to put restraints on what can be asserted as
> true. The authority of the intellectual level has an entirely different
> basis. Not only CAN we be talked into compliance, its the only proper way 
> to
> deal with beliefs and ideas.
>
> Ian said:
> In the later case, an "authority" on a subject can make all the
> pronouncements he likes, but it is intellectual if I am physically allowed
> to ignore him and follow my own thoughts. THIS IS THE KEY. It is social if
> society's arrangements for governance allow him to "impose" that 
> authority.
>
> dmb says:
> I guess we can imagine a situation where somebody decides that everyone
> should believe that E=mc2 and is willing to use physical force to achieve
> compliance, but that would be crazy and it wouldn't transform Einstein's
> equation into a social level belief. I mean, it does seem this distinction
> is key, but you're putting the key in upside down or something. Adding to
> what I've been saying about the differences in purpose and in kinds of
> authority, it seems that evidence has a certain "force" even if its not
> physical. Empirical data can't actually twist one's arm, but failure to
> comply will keep a person out of the journals and could, rightly I think,
> wreck one's intellectual credibility. Its moral to force compliance in 
> that
> way on that level while the use of imprisionment would be wildly
> inappropriate. Obviously, as Pirsig points out, social level values are 
> the
> middle term. Its relationship with biology is completely different from 
> its
> relationship with the intellect.
>
> Arlo said:
> Well, I agree with you in part. I think again its a distinction between 
> high
> and low quality intellectual patterns, not social and intellectual 
> patterns.
> So I'd say the "idea of god" is a low quality intellectual pattern 
> precisely
> because it depends on a huge amount fo social force and power to 
> promulgate
> itself.
>
> dmb says:
> Again, I'd argue that there are beliefs based on tradition and faith and
> then there are intelllectual assertions. There are low quality 
> intellectual
> concepts about God and there are traditional beliefs that have no
> intellectual merit at all. There is the kind of belief in God that simply
> refuses to subject itself to the rules of evidence, the kind that rejects
> the thought of Darwin, Marx and Freud as a bunch of Satanic lies. But 
> notice
> that traditional theism is all about the rules of morality, most 
> especially
> the kind we'd call the prohibitions against vice. Notice how this level of
> belief is about conforming to certain kinds of behaviour and the beliefs 
> are
> essentially designed to give the ultimate sanction, to provide a cosmic
> level of authority, as if God himself were most interested in who sleeps
> with who above all else. This is not an "idea", per se. As an idea, it
> totally indefensible. Its simply an expression of the rigidity of the
> prohibititons so sanctioned. Thou shalt not commit adultry, not because it
> would deeply wound the spouse or risk the unity of the family or otherwise
> do great harm, but becasue the creator of the universe said so and you'll 
> be
> tortured in hell forever if you don't. That is not an idea so much as a
> sentiment, an expression of what's good and bad in the way of basic social
> institutions like the family. In this way, social hierarchies, structures,
> its myths and heroes all reinforce each other in the task of controlling 
> the
> appetites of the organism. The family structure, for example, doesn't 
> exist
> to prevent sex but to control it. The king has the biggest chunk of land 
> and
> the largest herds just like Dad gets the big piece of chicken at dinner 
> time
> even though neither hunts for himself. I mean, the basic needs of the
> creature are all molified and re-channeled by social structures.
>
> This is another part of the problem with intellect. It has achieved
> independence from this level and is supposed to be going off on a purpose 
> of
> its own. But the failure to see this has led to a situation where the
> intellect, through technology, has merely joined the social level's task.
> The intellect is NOT supposed to be used just to find food or protect us
> from danger. That's what makes it so empty and hollow. Now we just have a
> lot of overprocessed, cheap, nasty food that isn't even healthy. Now we 
> have
> enough "protection" to destroy the planet many times over. Its the 
> ultimate
> in rational and efficient crappiness.
>
> I guess I'm trying to make a case that this distinction is very much worth
> making. It is designed to untangle all kinds of confusion. I think the 
> LAST
> thing that its supposed to do is equalize science and religion. The 
> purpose
> of criticizing SOM is not the same as criticizing theism. Its not because
> "god" and "substance" are both mythical. Its not because they both rest on
> assumptions. And its worth pointing out that almost every Western theist
> alive today is operating with the assumptions of SOM and so are the 
> secular
> scientific materialists. The theists are simply guilty of something else 
> on
> top of sharing those assumptions with their faithless counterparts.
>
> Nuff fer now,
> dmb
>
> "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
>
> "I am a pious man and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of 
> the
> natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by
> the lawgiver."
>
> Quotes from Hitler in 1941 and 1944, respectively.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by 
> style,
> age, and price. Try it!
> http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8000,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200601&tcode=wlmtagline
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>