[MD] Another parallel

[X Acto]

Thank you Dave,
An excellent appraisal. I don't think I can really ad much at the moment.

-Ron




________________________________
From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:27:55 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel


Ron said to dmb:
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.

dmb says:

Actually, "Objectivism" is the name of Ayn Rand's "philosophy". But I know what you mean and I agree. You're talking about scientific objectivity, the flawed intellectual pattern that was assigned to control society. It's important to distinguish this flaw in the intellect from the intellect itself and that is one of the best reasons to reject Bo's equation of intellect and SOM. To paraphrase ZAMM, Phaedrus' aim was to create a new spiritual rationality in which it would be irrational to exclude values. Likewise, in Lila the aim is to correct the old idea of value-free science by showing how the intellectual level is a level of morality. At the end of chapter 29, Pirsig puts it this way...
"In the past empiricists have tried to keep science free from values. Values have been considered a pollution of the rational scientific process. But the MOQ makes it clear that the pollution is from threats to science by lower static levels of evolution: ... The MOQ says that science's rejection of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it is also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science are of a higher evolutionary order that the old biological and social patterns."
And this is the same evolutionary morality that we see in the MOQ's analysis of politics in chapter 24, which 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."

Here we have an assertion of human rights as an intellectual moral principle, with a rational, metaphysical basis but from the perspective of scientific objectivity human rights are scientifically meaningless. Like all morals, it's just sentimental nonsense within SOM. In both books we see the main idea is to improve rationality itself, science itself, intellect itself and the critique of SOM is key to that improvement project. If the intellectual level is equal to SOM, then no such improvement would be possible. They would be no chance of creating a new spiritual rationality or of creating intellectual patterns that are NOT value-free. It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that Bo's equation would spoil the whole improvement project.


And that amoral objectivity is the flaw that engenders so much reaction. As I said to John a few weeks back, scientific objectivity is an enemy of both the MOQ and of the political reactionaries, especially reactionaries of the fundamentalist variety. It's no wonder they feel that scientific truths are an attack on morality and religion. Fundamentalism is a cure that's much worse than the disease, but at least we can agree that a cure is needed. I think the MOQ's evolutionary morality is very far from reactionary and does the trick much, much better. I'd even say that this here forum is no place for reactionaries but then it's not really a great place for scientific materialists either. 

Thanks.


_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_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/