[MD] Another parallel

[John Carl]

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:23 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> dmb says:
> That's pretty confusing, Ron. In fact, the phrase "intellectual victorian
> social values" contains an inherent contradiction that destroys the
> distinction between social values and intellectual values. Also, objectivity
> is the defect in the intellectual level, not the level itself.
>
> But you raise a good point and I should be more explicit about what is
> meant by "intellectual values".
>

Yeah.  Everybody should.  Explicit helps.

Wait.  Meant by who?  Pirsig?  You?  Pirsig as translated by you?


In chapter 24, where the moral codes are presented in the context of these
> political conflicts, it says, "what is meant by 'human rights' is usually
> the moral code of intellect vs. society, the moral right of intellect to be
> free of social control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel;
> trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent - these 'human rights'
> are all intellect vs. society issues.



I don't see how.  Take trial by jury, for instance.  It seems like a fair
way to decide things.  I'd probably find it even in more primitive,
non-intellectual societys where there can't be intellect vs. society because
there's no written language and thus no intellect and thus no intellectual
conflict.

What was the thesis of William James Siddis?  That much of the American
charter came from ideas gleaned from the way Algonquin Indians governed
themselves?  Or something like that.

Even freedom of speech has more to do with political groups afraid of the
consequence of being shut up.  In a plurality, rules are laid down with an
eye to social fairness.  Intellect is used in the process of working out the
rules, but they are simply social rules over social conduct.  I don't quite
get how intellect vs social is working out in the cases of your examples.





> According to the MOQ these 'human rights' have not just a sentimental
> basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to the
> evolution of a higher level of life from a lower level of life. They are for
> real. But what the MOQ also makes clear is that this intellect vs. society
> code of morals is not at all the same as the society vs. biology codes of
> morals that go back to a prehistoric time. They are

completely separate levels of morals. They should never be confused."


Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.  I am.  And in the following, you are
as well.  Dude, you been smokin' again?


>
> See, the MOQ isn't asking anyone to exchange scientific objectivity for
> morality. It is saying that the intellectual level itself is a kind of
> morality, a morality that is more evolved than social level morality. It
> says the laws that protect us from vice are just one set of morals. That
> doesn't mean that intellectuals don't have "family values" or that they
> think it's okay to be a crack addict. The intellectual doesn't have to be
> opposed to social values in order to achieve this higher level of morality
> but he will insist that human rights violations are worse than getting drunk
> and cheating on your wife.



Whew!  I don't know where to start....  "laws that protect us from vice are
just one set of morals"...  hmmm... nah.  I'll let that be.  It doesn't make
much sense but I don't think I want it to...

"It is saying that the intellectual level itself is a kind of morality, a
morality that is more evolved than social level morality"  --- yeah.  this
one here.  I'd like to address it.  And perhaps we'll just let the rest
mostly slide out of kindness for temp insane reasons.


I'm going to try and disambiguate morality for you a bit, and interpret this
as  "It is saying that the intellectual level itself is a kind of good, a
good that is more evolved than the social level good."   Because morality is
just a name for rules we play by, good is the goal.  Intellectual good is
different that social good, and it is that conflict that I think we're
trying to discuss, but we seem to keep stumbling over this same issue
without going into it that good is different than values or morality.  And
sorry to keep harping on it, but you can't get past fundamental issues.
 That's why they call them that.



>
> Anyway, I think the MOQ's analysis sorts these things out quite nicely. Of
> course it also helps to know something about history and current events and
> the connections between them. Obviously, a person can only apply the MOQ's
> analysis to things they understand pretty well in the first place.
>
>
Well I definitely smiled when I read this.  Because slappin' the ole MOQ
label on what you already "understand pretty well in the first place" is a
specialty of yours dave.  :)


John the budding snark



>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
>
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
> 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/
>



-- 
------------
There are differing interpretations of Reality, some are just better than
others, that's all.
------------