[MD] irony and socrates

[skutvik at online.no]

For Ian

12 Oct. 

Bo asked,
> "When did mental and corporeal (mind/matter) start to apply to MOQ
> static levels?" 

Ian replied:
> They don't. Jeez !! That's what I said - it doesn't help to talk about
> mental. 

You said  "No point speaking about mind-intellect as a way of 
distinguishing it from social (because) both involve mental aspects" 
and this grates my Q-nerve. Perhaps - like Pirsig - you mean that 
(from SOM seen) social and intellectual patterns are mental, but this 
soon turns into "mental/corporeal" being valid in the MOQ. Again see 
the said "Part 2" post      

> Some hope : You suggested. "Every single intellectual pattern is about
> debunking the social [PoV's]." Nice idea. A hierarchical relationship
> of Intellect over Social - which is where we started. But, so many
> questions. Are all social PoV's in need of debunking? 

Of course, MOQ's most fundamental tenet is that the the upper level's 
purpose is to control the lower, and that means "debunking" it.    

> Are all intellectual PoV's free of social prejudices ?

I'm not sure what you mean, but possibly "if intellect is free from all 
social ties" which it definitely isn't, but let me finish my  train of thought:

The levels do not know any levels and consequently don't know when 
to stop their "debunking" of their parent. The lower levels are arrested 
long before their base is endangered. For instance a social "cause" 
cannot spend all its members without destroying itself. But when it 
comes to the intellect vs society it has more grave consequences. 
Society (control of biology) cannot be disrupted by intellect without 
creating "social nightmares" (as Pirsig and Platt points out). This is 
prevented by the MOQ revealing the Q-context, thus degrading SOM 
to its own 4th. level. This is the "level-like" relationship between 
intellect and the MOQ.        

> How can we tell a good / intellectual PoV from an inferior / social PoV

The MOQ says that if any level is examined thoroughly its parent level 
will show and  LILA spends long passages on the intellect-society 
relationship, f.ex. demonstrating how scientists (happen to) 
manipulates their experiments for social (celebrity, money) reasons. 
Yet, intellect's value as different from the social value is crystal clear, if 
social infringement is spotted (a scientist caught cheating) he/she is 
chastised severely.      

> How do we do any of that if intellect = SOM 

Social value is "subjective" seen from intellect (from the MOQ it's a 
level in its own right) so subjectivity  is what intellect despises. But this 
above is academy's "immune apparatus", back to the "social 
nightmare" resulting from intellect overly "debunking" of social values. 
Intellect's subject/object  master-pattern says that the individual is 
determined by its genes (objective) or its environment (subjective) 
under no circumstances is he/she responsible and can be punished. 
While we know how well social-steeped cultures creates security. 
Anyway the intellect=SOM tenet is necessary for PIRSIG'S 
observations to be valid. 

Bodvar