[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[MarshaV]

Greetings,

Why not compose another letter to RMP?  Ask him straight on.   If 
nothing else, maybe in composing such a letter some insight will 
shine through.

Marsha



At 05:25 AM 11/28/2008, you wrote:
>Ian, responding to Bodvar having made this a separate thread.
>
>You're right, this is a biggy.
>Ian
>
>Andre:
>
>Bodvar argues ( I do not want to miss represent you) that there is something
>not quite right at the intellectual level (to put it mildly). Here I just
>want to throw in my bit so please bear with me.
>
>If the intellectual level is 'confined' to the 'skilled manipulation of
>abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which
>behave according to rules of their own' (this points indeed to math, logic,
>computer programming etc) but my question is: 'What are we then
>intellectualising about? what the fuck (pardon me) is going on here? Are we
>intellectualising about intellectualising or are we intellectualising about
>learning to understand inorganic, organic and social PoV's?...and at the
>intellectual level trying to dominate/control these? Where is the
>connection?
>
>Looking at  it from this point of view, every level 'below' the intellectual
>is, through this process 'objectified' (and by this I mean, made into a
>thing, an object). Isn't this process the very thing Pirsig had identified
>as being the cause of this modern day rust-belt?
>
>'These subject-object patterns (he refers to SOM as the 'paralysing
>intellectual system) were never designed for the job of governing society.
>They're not doing it....It's this intellectual pattern of amoral
>'objectivity' that is to blame because it has undermined the static social
>values necessary to prevent deterioration (Lila p312).
>
>Is this pointing to a 'split' (if you like) in the intellectual approach? A
>different way of thinking when confronted with 'objects' (SOM land)  and
>'subjects (MoQ land)?  And Pirsig condemming SOM's 'approach' and instead
>proposing the MoQ 'approach'( i.e do think about all patterns as morality in
>a moral way)??
>
>If YES, then why reduce the intellectual level to be restricted to
>the manipulation of abstract symbols which, as I argue (has the, perhaps,
>unintended consequences/side effects of/ SOM effects!) treating all 'lower
>levels' as (moral) objects? ( e.g. human beings turned into patients,
>consumers, economic units? I realise this occurs at the social level but can
>you follow what I am getting at?) .
>
>What is wrong with my reasoning that leads to this conclusion?
>
>If the MoQ posits that socialism is morally better than capitalism because
>it is an 'intellectually guided society', and I see everywhere around me
>people being treated as objects (by this system called socialism) ...this
>idea...not killing them (well,,they do but that occurs everywhere else as
>well and is , here, beside the point) ..stifling them...not allowing them to
>express themselves as human beings. Is this what the MoQ proposes?  I doubt
>it very much. But here lies, for me, a big discrepancy which, as far as my
>reading goes, re the intellectual level, is not resolved and I may add
>reinforces Bodvar's SOL theory.
>
>For what it is worth.
>
>Andre
>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/

.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.