[MD] Politics

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting skutvik at online.no:

> Chris, Platt, all.
> 
> 28 February you wrote:
> 
> > Arlo, Ian, Platt
> 
> > Platt:
> > >Don't think that's true. I denounce the social pattern of big
> > >government but support many traditional social patterns like
> > >craftsmanship, self- reliance and self-responsibility.
>  
> > I bet you did that long before you heard of the MOQ. We seem to live
> > in different worlds. Let me tell you one reason why I don't like the
> > "help-yourself" part of the American dream. For almost a thousand
> > years we in this northern corner of Europe-  and far longer more to
> > the south - there was very weak social patterns, no institutions, no
> > real government: only warmongers and fuzzy honour-codes to keep people
> > in something akin to order. Self-reliance and self-responsibility was
> > all there was. 
> 
> I always listen when Chis gives history lessons and this is also 
> valid stuff, just a comment regarding the term "weak social 
> patterns". In this context he possibly means communities not 
> sufficiently intellectually (rationally) run. In my opinion the more 
> basic the community, the  stronger the Q-social value. Family in 
> the human ancestry type sense, klan, tribe are the oldest 
> strongest and thus "best" social patterns. But intellect is better in 
> the MOQ sense and a society overlaid by intellectual values is 
> the best place to live. At least to an intellect-carrier (like 
> Christoffer).           
> 
> > But new times came, development continued.  From the time of the
> > Swedish Empire and until the 19th century, institutions continued to
> > grow strong,  the governments ability to gain control continued as
> > well. However, This development didn't go towards a more totalitarian
> > state, but rather the opposite. In 1921 both men and women had the
> > right to vote, and it is now, when that happens that the government
> > may become a most efficient tool for the people. self- reliance and
> > self-responsibility is still important, and it always will. But the
> > people decided that if someone should fail, or if something should go
> > wrong, then there should be help to be gotten. The welfare-state. 
> > Moreover, this is a quite intellectual reasoning that brings this about
> > - if there is generally less poverty and less fear of poverty in
> > society, why then society will be a safer place, and everybody can go
> > about their business more calmly. 
> 
> Yes, here Chris says the very same thing. This is an intellect-
> dominated "society".
> 
> > Then put this into a MOQ context. I believe that what should be done is
> > to further the development of the intellectual level - I'm sure you
> > will agree - so, by using s somewhat utilitarian way of reasoning here:
> > if as many as possible may educate themselves as much as possible, that
> > will further the development of the intellectual level. So, back to my
> > original point: If we now have the state, and we can make it work for
> > us, both working as a frame for social patterns of value and,
> > furthering the development AND being controlled by  - intellectual
> > patterns of value (reason) then why on earth should we not do so? 
> 
> What the MOQ adds is the dynamic aspect that Platt 
> demonstrates by the LILA quotes (in his reply to this) But there is 
> another question: What Chris correctly calls reason and the MOQ 
> calls SOM - and SOL identifies with the intellectual level - has 
> done its good job of dominating social value without "knowing" 
> the level context. What will the effect of knowing this context 
> have on intellect? 
> 
> In my opinion the SOL interpretation (the 4th. level=S/O 
> distinction) is mandatory to prevent the MOQ becoming an anti-
> intellectual force, because it can't be swept under the carpet that 
> Pirsig's tendency to presents intellect as an innocent beauty 
> raped by "rationality" (science & knowledge) opens a dangerous 
> route. It sounds as if intellect can be made good if the said 
> patterns will be exposed as frauds, but these ARE the 4th. level 
> and a rationality exposed as a fraud is no rationality. Intellect will 
> be gone as and existence has dropped down to the social level. 
> And there are passages in LILA that makes it sound as if the 
> MOQ is anti-intellectual.
> 
> With SOM (rationality, knowledge, science ..etc.) = the 4th. level, 
> the MOQ tenet of the upper level being out of the former pose no 
> argument against intellect as the highest static value and its 
> moral superiority over social value is firmly established.  

May I suggest that so long as the 4th level (SOM) has no provision for morals
it will never do a proper job of dominating the social level. I think Pirsig
makes this clear in his critique of intellectually-guided socialism. 

Regards, 
Platt



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/