[MD] Another parallel

[John Carl]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:24 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

> Platt & John
>
> In the above quote Pirsig also refers to science, but the point is that
> the 4th. level IS the OBJECTIVE attitude of which science is most
> prominent.


The big problem Phaedrus had in confronting the scientific worldview is that
the scientific worldview had no way of analysing the scientific worldview.
 As James Carse pointed out in quote I posted sometime back, in fighting off
the religious worldview, the scientific worldview converted from a
methodology into a belief.  Thinking ABOUT science is the intellectual
level's venue.  Thinking FROM science is currently a  social pattern.   At
one time, the scientific worldview was about thinking about, but with the
dynamic nature of the evolution of ideas, yesterday's dynamic becomes
tomorrow's static.




> It says that morals only exists SUBJECTIVELY in our
> minds and thus irreal (mind a fall-out of matter) The fact that matter
> can't exist without mind (the platypuses) I leave here, the point is that
> SOM is no evil force that has invaded intellect, but the very article.


I agree that SOM is no evil force.  The evil force is the force that forces
it down our throats as if there was no other possible way to think.
The force that wants static truth to remain and hates change.


>
> Social value patterns are as many-faceted as intellect's, but one basic
> feature can be extracted, namely THE COMMON CAUSE and since
> you mention  Victorian times (England) it's displayed in the slogan
> "my country right or wrong". Separation of science and morality - in
> Victorian times - definitely, because "science" already represented the
> coming intellectual and "morality" the waning social value. But there
> are cultures today where intellect hasn't got a hold, where social value
> in many forms rule. Particularly the muslim world where Islam reigns
> ... unrestricted.
>

Dang ambiguity again.  "Morality" is a tricky word.  Here you use it to mean
the prevailing morals of the time -  Christian morality if we're talking
Victorian.  But morality is also a general term for the rules of society, in
which case it can never be a waning social value.  Social values evolve from
one thing to the other.  The social values of Christian morality evolved
into the social values of scientific materialism.




> , but with the social level the
> trouble begins because SOM has no social level only societies and
> entering beehives and anthills is counterproductive.



SOM has no social levels but society has values based upon SOM.  Ants and
bees don't think about it much, they just do what they do.  Got ya.



> Also that of USA
> or any other Western state as "social value" representatives, they are
> societies totally intellect-dominated.



I disagree with that particular assessment.  I'd say Western Civ has
devolved into a completely social-dominated matrix, along the lines of the
Victorian era and  I'd reinforce dmb's points about Neo Victorian values
today.

Here's a clue - Books are mainly an intellectual phenomena and TV, Movies
and Pop music are social.  Which dominates the society we live in?


And with intellect the real trouble
> starts, this level has nothing to do with mind, thinking, intelligence or
> anything but is the aforementioned OBJECTIVE, scientific mind-set
> ...SOM in other words.
>

The debate continues, in other words.

I like what Needlman said about the Bhagadva Gita making a distinction
between consciousness (dynamic choice) and the contents of consciousness
(static reality)  and always needing to keep this distinction fresh.

 Appreciate the dialogue Bo,

John


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