[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[skutvik at online.no]

Arlo, John, Group 

6 Oct.  Arlo wrote:

[John quotes Pirsig as quoted by Bo The Wise]
> "there is no intellectual requirement that any level dominate the
> other three."

I'm afraid John took the quoted LILA parts to be mine, he is in 
kindergarten you know ;- )

[Arlo]
> Would you take this to mean that there is no moral justification for
> social patterns to dominate biological patterns, say with tribal or
> legal restrictions against beating someone up?

Agree, and I found you previous post to John a splendid intro. to the 
level tenet..

> Let me say upfront that I think that "higher level" patterns only have
> moral justification in dominating "lower level" patterns when its to
> contain a threat that would destroy the entire edifice. Without "laws"
> prohibiting murder, a functional society becomes almost impossible.
> Without "intellectual" considerations of "law enforcement", society
> remains trapped underneath the power of whatever social pattern (or
> person) is in charge (i.e., no functional intellectual system can
> develop).

Ditto

> But I do not think such a structure benefits from wanton domination of
> the "lower levels". A society that strives to dominate and control
> every possible biological pattern finds itself eventually like the
> Victorians. An intellect that strives to dominate every aspect of
> society succumbs to a similar malady.

Right, this is the point, the proper balance between control and sawing 
over the branch the upper level sits on. BTW about  "...an intellect that 
strives to dominate society .."  seems to reconciliate Platt and yourself    

> However, when there *is* conflict, it should morally be the higher
> pattern that "wins out". Laws prohibiting "oral sex", for example,
> lost to "intellectual considerations of freedom and law" that decried
> such behavior between consenting adults to be outside the domain of
> social domination. Consider, in the same vein, laws under
> consideration that would restrict or ban "soda".

The said balance isn't easy and when intellect's "individual freedom" 
goes amok it may cause social disruption. The MOQ is the only 
"system" that explains this quandary, but it's dependent on the S/O 
intellect, the manipulation-of-symbols intellect has no conceivable 
interest in controlling society or society any reason to regard a threat.    

> [Arlo]
> If you mean by "intellectualism" what I call above the "wanton 
> dominance" of social patterns, then I agree with you. In the same
> vein, I'd also reject "societalism", the wanton dominance of
> biological patterns by society.
 
> You know, I think we got some words wrong here. What we think of as
> "socialism" should be "intellectualism" (intellectual control of
> society). "Socialism" should refer to people like the Victorians,
> social dominance of biological (and intellectual) patterns.

Agree, but I think you mean the Victorians to represent "societalism" 
...no? General agreement with the rest of your post. 


Bodvar