[MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

[X Acto]

Hi Bo

30 Aug. 

You had said:

> > DMB entered back in the mid nineties shortly after the forming of the 
> > Lila Squad with an intense interest in Mythology as conveyed by Campbell
> > and a conviction of this fitting with MOQ's social level (which it does)
> > but he was  "seduced" by Paul Turner whose mission was to debunk the SOL
> > interpretation and after that ..... well without the right
> > interpretation the MOQ becomes a drag, nothing fits and it can't explain
> > or predict anything.

Ron:

> Many times, by many examples do we use to explain the benifits and the
> explanitory power of the Moq as we understand it per Pirsig, which you
> do not agree with even Pirsig himself. You however have yet to give
> ONE example of the explanitory power your SOL provides other than your
> say-so.

Bo:
First "the way you understand it" is that SOM is one among many 
intellectual patterns, and the definition of the 4th. level is "the 
manipulation of symbols ...etc." Is that correct 

Ron:
The skillful manipulation of abstract symbols which have no corresponding
experience.

Bo:
The MOQ postulates an principal  struggle between the lower and 
upper levels, that they mutually regard each other as "evil", biological 
life struggles to avoid death and "inorgany" does its best to prevent 
life. OK, why would manipulation of symbol be offensive to "society" 
and vice versa. This is completely illogical, while SOM (objectivity-
over-subjectivity) and social values are completely incompatible.  

Ron:
Typically this function was reserved for an elite ruling class
in the social level of kings and priests it was their agreement of truth
that members of a society must follow. To challenge this class was to 
challenge society, a social evil. Being able to read was a social evil
an educated society was a social evil. Democracy was a social evil.
Any one of those things have nothing to do with objectivism in a society.
but it does have alot to do with self governance when the members of a
society choose, create, interpret and agree to those abstract symbols
which have no corresponding experience we have the intellectual level
emerging from social level rule of thought, people thinking for themselves
is evil and threatening to a social system rule.

Bo:
Then very generally (because I don't have LILA with me here, but I 
will provide quotes if needed)  Pirsig says that every major conflict up 
through the (later) age have been varieties of the social- intellectual 
struggle and if so intellect must be the value of the S/O distinction 
(with emphasis on the "objective over subjective" part) there can't be 
other intellectual patterns or this would be invalid, then everything 
must have been a "civil war" within intellect.  

Ron:
Actually you are correct, everything is a kind of a"civil war" within intellect.

Bo:
All intellectual pattern that Pirsig lists in LILA are based on the S/O 
(again the "objective over subjective" part). Free this and free that, 
independent this and independent that, all is about freeing everything 
from the social bonds by showing that these are subjective. It's more 
than plain that intellect must be the objective as different from 
subjective (the latter the pejorative term that intellect applies to 
everything social)

The Nazi vs Democracy conflict Pirsig sees as Social values' last 
stand against intellect and if so Intellect must be the value of the 
objective freedoms and independency  over what it saw as evil itself, 
namely the individual submission under society's demands for giving 
everything for the "cause". If not this would be a struggle between 
nazi "ideas" and democratic ditto  ... which is good SOM, but not 
MOQ.  

Ron:
The reason you see it that way is that democracy challenges the
social domination of the elite few. You lump objectivism in with
the idea of democracy. The Iroquois ran democratic systems without
objectivism for one example. The romans had a democratic republic before the rule
of the ceszars which took intellectual control once again up until
the enlightenment age with the rule of kings once again.
The blossoming of the intellectual level is the blossoming of a 
democratic republic no matter how they concieve of reality.
which is why objectivism flourished in the 18th and 19th centuries,
the freedom of individual thought from social domination of church and king.
see(Orwells 1984). 

Bo:
The present "Western Values" that the Muslims hate so much (but 
want the economical benefits of) is clearly Intellect in the shape of 
democracy - not merely elections but all its shores against despotism 
which is the curse of the Islamic culture. Any dictator are welcomed if 
only dedicated to islam, no "Christian" (intellectual) distinction 
between religion and state. THAT in fact  is the very "evil" they fight 
against with such ferocity ... and disregard of life, which is society's 
force, the individual is supposed to give its life freely to defend the 
"cause". 

Ron:
What they "hate" is the biological freedom western objectivism has
unleashed, that which they have worked so hard to repress and according
to the MoQ they are justified in hating an intellectual pattern that undercuts
that social restraint of biological patterns. Intellectually they are ruthlessly
destroying those patterns which destroy social control over biology and thats
objectivism and since objectivism dominates western society, they are out
to ruthlessly destroy us.

Ron prev:
> you can't even mount a convincing argue to Ham, the perfect subject
> for your aims.

Bo:
I must first "smoke him out" and that is impossible. 


Ron:
mmmmmm smoked ham.

Ron prev:
> one example

> except, a sesame street explaination of moving the "M" from SOM
> to the "M" of the MOQ.

> Big Bird would be proud

Bo:
I don't understand your colloquialism, but now it's your turn to tell how 
your interpretation of the intellectual level explains things. 

Ron:
See above, I think you confuse the historical evolution of
the intellectual pattern of self governance of a society with
the historical evolution of the intellectual patten of objectivism.
You view them as one in the same, which is understandable,
but it is also the reason why you disagree with 3/4 of Pirsigs
MoQ.
I truly believe, that public education, literacy and democracy
within a society are the hallmarks of the intellectual level
not objectivsm in and of itself.

Objectivism as an intellectual pattern coincides with all of Pirsigs
work not just select portions of ZMM. plus it coincides with
MoQ's base philosophy, Pragmatism, Zen Buddhism Hindu
and a host of other established eastern and western philosophies
both ancient and modern not to mention current understanding
in modern physics.
And all you have supplied Bo is an explaination based on your interpretaion
of Pirsigs work, not any kind of an example of SOL's  explanitory power.

I'm still waiting.
























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/