[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 2

[Joseph Maurer]

On 10/29/09 12:57 AM, "Ian Glendinning" <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
I actually think you are onto something with one point here, but you
miss the difficulties others are raising.
Yes the social level also involve(d/s) patterns of subjects and
objects - all that the step to the SOMist intellectual levels
indicates is the point where the objective half of that split got
taken to be fundamental reality from the subjects perspective. I have
never had any disagreement with you over this interpretation of the
MoQ levels. My problem is that it does not tell us anything useful
about the hierarchical goodness of social and intellectual patterns in
real life - now and in future. If anything it implies this kind of
intellect is always worse than any social pattern - the Platteral
anti-intellectual stance - which is clearly too simplistic, as well as
useless - the "crucial" point above. It doesn't help us say how and
when social (or intellectual) is better than intelectual (or social) -
when is reasonable also good (or not) ?
 
Hi Ian and all,
 
I learned a pattern for evolution that is different from Pirsig¹s pattern.
 
In the pattern of evolution from esoteric literature an ³emotional² level is
proposed as the first conscious level after two-celled organic life.  Pirsig
goes from the organic level (life) to a social level (order in life), e.g.
parents with offspring, and then reaffirms a different order in life with an
Intellectual level which is not a direct evolution from the parental level
because it introduces an idea of community, in common.  This is confusing.
³Emotions² do not have the same sense of hierarchic value that ³social² and
³intellectual² support. Changing the name of the ³social² level to the
³emotional² level introduces the DQ hierarchy family, a law of three.
Different moralities apply since rights like sex within the family structure
are different from rights in the law controlled community which is proper to
the ³intellectual² level.
 
Joe

> I actually think you are onto something with one point here, but you
> miss the difficulties others are raising.
> Yes the social level also involve(d/s) patterns of subjects and
> objects - all that the step to the SOMist intellectual levels
> indicates is the point where the objective half of that split got
> taken to be fundamental reality from the subjects perspective. I have
> never had any disagreement with you over this interpretation of the
> MoQ levels. My problem is that it does not tell us anything useful
> about the hierarchical goodness of social and intellectual patterns in
> real life - now and in future. If anything it implies this kind of
> intellect is always worse than any social pattern - the Platteral
> anti-intellectual stance - which is clearly too simplistic, as well as
> useless - the "crucial" point above. It doesn't help us say how and
> when social (or intellectual) is better than intelectual (or social) -
> when is reasonable also good (or not) ?