[MD] irony and socrates

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi John

19 Oct-

Bo before
> > Hitler was the least "intellectual" conceivable, the nazi movement
> > was social value's last stand  in the Western hemisphere according
> > to Pirsig in LILA something I agree totally with.

John:
> Disagree about Hitler.  Mein Kampf was an intellectual plea to take
> society on a different path because of the failures of the German
> State.   This was immoral, not because of a static hierarchical
> relationship between social dominance and intellectual.  It was
> immoral because it ruthlessly suppressed all potential for  dynamic
> evolution.

You still have some Q-fundamentals wrong, namely that writing and 
reading is Q-intellectual activity  in which case the Bible or Koran are 
"intellectual pleas" to believe in (their respective) God.

> In other words, morality is determined by the DQ/sq orientation of any
> choice at any level, not by simplistic hierarchical analysis.

There's too much yelping about "dynamic". This is something 
frightening and awesome involved in the emergence of new levels (not 
in the inter-level play) the last of which was the SOM-MOQ transition. 
There is some level-like relationship between the uppermost static 
level - intellect - and the MOQ itself. Before the MOQ "intellect" was 
SOM and hated being made a sub-set of the MOQ*)  And when 
Phaedrus wandered beyond SOM's perimeter he was  struck down by 
SOM-as-intellect's "immune system".   

*) This is the Q-tenet of each lower level resisting any "system" above 
itself. Inorganic value trying its best to prevent life and so on upwards.

Now, I wander, but I feel that  both the social and intellectual levels - 
and the level relationship - is misunderstood - even by Pirsig of LILA 
who at times loses sight of his own original insight that SOM = intellect 
(there were no levels in ZAMM) and flaunts an  intellect which is more 
like a mental compartment,.i.e. SOM's "mind". OK, you don't say it 
here, but I use every opportunity to bark up the nearest tree.  
 
> Holding intellect as the highest good would be "intellectualism" or
> "objectivism". .....

The intellectual level is the highest and best and if you see it as 
"objectivism" very good,  the objective attitude is better that the 
subjective. However it must be understood "subjectiv" belongs to 
intellect too - its derogatory term for the past it has escaped. However 
from the the MOQ seen the 3rd. level (that the 4th. emerged from) isn't 
subjective. The S/O distinction is abolished.

> ......  I agree that DQ is more important, but I disagree that it is a
>  level above the 4th.   

Arrrgh. the "level" issue again. I said that there is a quasi level 
relationship between intellect and the MOQ, but the MOQ must be 
seen for what it actually is, namely the DQ/SQ Metaphysical System. 
It's everywhere.. 

When SOM ruled it was the S/O Metaphysical System, no one asked 
where it was located, it was everywhere. MOQ's first chess move was 
that of putting the SOM bell on the cat,  and consequently the first 
counter-move was to deny any SOM (re. Strawson's review of LILA)

> I'm starting to see more clearly now, and I appreciate your patient
> dialogue. And  thanks for sending me back to kindergarten, some time
> back Bodvar.  I've learned a lot there! John the ready to graduate 

Good, you will jump several grades if you continue this progress ;-) 

BTW I am to have a show of my paintings come december and may 
be a bit distracted these days

Bodvar

 .