[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 11 Oct 2009 at 10:47, John Carl wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > > John]
> > >
> > > Then you and Pirsig are gonna have to explain to me the difference
> > between
> > > "source" and "cause".  You might as well say intellectual responses are
> > > biological because they reside in a brain.
> >
> > Platt
> > Using that logic you might as well say intellectual responses are
> > inorganic because they depend on electrical impulses.
> >
> >
> 
> Right!  You get my point then.  That which we posit as a "source" is not the
> stuff making up the pattern, but the higher thought which generates the
> patterns out of stuff.  Biology is not the source of emotions.

If you're saying thought creates patterns I agree. But then that's not 
saying much. That's what thought does. So your conclusion hardly 
follows. 

> 
> 
> 
> > Platt
> > Fear is an emotional response and the seat of emotions is biological.
> >
> 
> Just like the seat of intellect is biological.  But that doesn't make
> Q-sense when you draw it up, does it.
> 
> 
> 
> > There's no evidence of emotion at the inorganic level but lots at the
> > biological. One observes rudimentary emotional behavior even among
> > cells as they respond to their environment. At the root of emotional
> > responses is the survival commandment, a basic characteristic of life.
> >
> 
> 
> A commandment we are all doomed to break.
> 
> Sorry, I'm in a bit of a gloomy mood, what with contemplating my mortality
> and winter coming and all.
> 
> Since emotional responses can arise in many different ways, including the
> abstract and intellectual joys
> of aesthetic appreciation, I don't see it as useful at all labeling them
> "biological".

Well, in Pirsig's scheme of four static value pattern levels plus DQ 
everything supposedly has a "home." He put emotions in the biological 
level. I find it "useful" to put them there, too. Also I think responses to 
"abstract and intellectual joys of aesthetic appreciation" are not 
emotional but indicators in pure experience that DQ is present.
 
> 
> 
> >
> > Platt
> > According to the author of the MOQ, the social level exists only on the
> > human level of being.  As for the source of emotion being Quality,
> > Quality is is source of everything. Unless you take into account the static
> > levels and DQ, you might as well attribute the source of emotions to
> > God's will.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand Pirsig's use of the term "social" in labeling the 3rd level,
> but you can't keep the term exclusively to denote that, for I need a term
> for the relationships of beings that spans the continuum - from wolf packs
> to me and hot stoves, all life is a relation of beings labeled self and
> other.  These relations are what generates all emotions, which are
> expressed, felt or experienced by my biological being in a very real and
> empirical way, which I then perceive in other beings and thus have a grasp
> on how to relate to them.

I simply refer to other collections of things as groups. Societies I reserve 
for human groups. Makes sense to me given Pirsig's static levels.

 
> I'd say Bo is right.  I'm confused.  Confusion is suffering.  Suffering is
> good.  Suffering brings about evolution.

Agree. He who isn't confused lacks humility. 

 
> Here is the essence of my confusion,  you could take most of what has been
> said about Quality, and apply it to "positive feeling".  The apprehension of
> Quality as I experience it is a feeling of "good" - an emotion.  When I get
> praise for something, that good feeling is the reinforcing agent of
> intellectual evolution which encourages the intellectual behavior that
> generated the praise.

I also think of "bad" as the negative side of Quality, i.e., low Quality. But 
the presence of good, bad or neutral comes before any feeling, thought, 
or expression of any kind. It is the core of immediate experience. 

> 
> When I play chess with my father-in-law, I feel a certain way when I win,
> and a different way when I lose.  When I look at a great painting - one
> shining with DQ - I FEEL something.  I can't even always express the
> feeling, but from Pirsig's writing and my own reflection, what else is this
> emotion than the experience of DQ?  If so, then DQ is "just" another word
> for "emotional reaction".
> 
> Intellectually speaking, I realize there is more to this  than My emotions.
>  But the immediate experience, the stove-top direct feeling, is the closest
> analogue I've got to the metaphysical entity we call "Good".
> 
> 
> 
> > Platt
> > "Humility" is a reminder to myself and others that we don't know
> > everything, including what's good for others. Forgetting or ignoring
> > humility leads to low quality bigotry and despotism.
> >
> >
> Well I have denigrated Paul the apostle here, but he said some quite useful
> things too.  I believe his statement "I die daily" is a high quality
> intellectual construct which has influenced Western Civilization in the
> ability to let go of static patterns and thus frees up men to grasp what is
> evolving rather than cling to what has evolved.
> 
> 
> Humility is actually a more useful trait than intelligence, because all
> intelligence is a measure of speed - how quickly you can grasp something.
>  But a humble guy, even being slow, will get there eventually while the
> super-intelligent will often lean too long upon the fact of their ability.
> 
> Besides, intelligence is hard work.  It's easier to be humble and I, am
> basically, a lazy guy.
> 
> But I could be wrong about that.
 
Whether either or us is right or wrong is less important that the pleasure 
I feel in exchanging thoughts no matter from whence such pleasure 
emanates.:-) 

Platt.