[MD] Another parallel

[skutvik at online.no]

Ron and  DMB

11 July 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.

Bravo Ron! Intellectual values = objectivism is spot on. 

> 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.

But then you lose track, like DMB says below ...

> 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.

But then DMB loses track himself.

> Also, objectivity is the defect in the intellectual level, not the
> level itself. 

What the intellectual level is beside objectivity (subjectivity the 
siamese twin) I would like to know. The 4th level is SOM and I would 
like some more substance than DMB's constant harping on: "it's 
wrong because Pirsig says so". Pirsig says many things among them 
that it's no use talking about intellect before the Greeks and that 
spells SOM.

> 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. 

Agree, but first all the intellectual patterns listed in chapter 24 are 
based on OBJECTIVITY - on REASON - versus social values that 
intellect deem subjective, but seen from the social level is morals 
itself. No, objectivity is no "defect" but intellect's very core. How long 
will it take for you to see the obvious?

Bodvar