[MD] Another parallel

[X Acto]

Dave,
Great points, I was having a hard time explaining my meaning. I think
knowing your history certainly helps but as you say, Moq  opens
up an understanding in conflicting values, Conservatives feel, in most
cases, that they are making intellectual decisions and supporting them
with reason, when in fact perhaps it's another version of the rationalism 
vs. empiricism conflict that seems to be characteristic of most of the disagreements
of the past century.
Most certainly MoQ supports intellectual patterns over social but as Pirsig asked,
Is objectivism the way to go? they both seem ultimately self destructive and to
"ping pong" between the two in static latching, a viral loop.
Objectivism seems to characterize our cultures meaning of the term "intellectual"
and there is the sticking point of calling objectivism the intellectual level.
Causing our conversations to get stuck in  THAT logic trap. It kills any progress
made by viewing it in terms of value conflicts.
This is one of my major gripes about Bo's position and the historic evolution
in terms of the levels.
I'd like to get into a discussion on this, I think once we establish a distinction
that functions well in terms of intellectual patterns and objectivism then a more
progressive understanding may be gained in terms of the value conflicts.

-Ron





________________________________
From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:23:09 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel


Ron said to Dave and John:

I think it helps the discusion to specify that the term "intellectual values" in this case refers to objectivism and it's values. Intellectual objective values vs. intellectual victorian social values. which dominated the intellectual level. Objectivism was victorian societies servant, the servant of intellectual patterns that placed social values at the pinnacle of importance.

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".

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. 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."

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. 
Think about gay marriage and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, for example. That's a typical point of contention between the left and right, it's in the news these days, and everybody knows where the two parties stand on this issue. Now think about these polar positions in terms of what Pirsig says in the quote above about the two codes of morality being "not at all the same".
The conservatives think it's about sin and sex. They see their position as a defense of society against perverse biological values, mere physical pleasure or vice. Obviously, this is the society vs biology code. The liberals think it's a human rights issue. They see themselves as defending the principles of human rights and equality against traditional bigotry and hate. This is the intellect vs. society code.

The odd thing is, if these rights were given equally to gay people they could only use them to get married and serve in the military, both of which are things generally applauded by conservatism, but these policies would have no effect on anyone's actual sex life. When gay rights issues are seen in terms of mere vice, their desire for the right to get married is taken as an insult to the institution, especially by those who take it as essentially a religious vow within their faith. To some extent this point is granted and so the notion of a "civil union" went into circulation. That way, the traditional form of marriage could be preserved while gay people still get the same legal rights as any other couple.

Practically speaking, I guess that's a pretty decent compromise. But the MOQ says that whenever social values conflict with intellectual values, the moral thing to do is assert the higher level over the lower one. To my mind, this means that human rights violations are a crime no matter who does the violating, and that includes the churches. It is strange and ironic that the churches and the moralizers should be defending this lesser morality. In the MOQ, that's a kind of evil. And to my mind, it's just plain mean and unreasonable and unfair.

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.
    


_________________________________________________________________
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/