[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[Platt Holden]

Hi David,
Brilliant analysis, intellectual quality at its best. I've taken the liberty
of summarizing your main points.

1. If highly moral cultures are dominantly guided by intellect, why did
Pirsig judge many Indian cultures as good.?.
Comment: I'd like to see someone try to argue that Indian cultures were
dominated by intellectual values.

2. Domination of intellectual values over social values isn't always for
better, as the eugenics movement demonstrated..  Comment: Other
intellectually guided experiments have been horrendous. Ex: Nazi medical
experiments, the Tuskegee Experiment

3. It's an error to equate the economic theory of capitalism with the
political theory of socialism. All political systems include capitalism to
varying degrees.
Comment: No society can survive without creating surpluses -- also known as
"profits."

4.Both fascist and socialist systems justify punishing those who disagree
with their theories and practices.
Comment: Taxes and regulations are just the beginning, then come the
concentration camps and gulags.

5. If the lower level is unaware of the upper, how could a
socially-dominated Nazi system deliberately attack intellect?
Comment: The left has managed to hide the truth that Nazism was a socialist,
intellectually-guided system.

6. The distinction between the social and intellectual levels is shaky at
best, especially the claim there is no direct connection between biology and
intellect.
Comment: The key word is "direct."  The intellectual level is more directly
connected to the social than the biological or inorganic, but is connected
to all below nevertheless.
.

I welcome corrections to my summaries or comments. But, I think the
summaries generally reflect David's incisive criticism of several MOQ
assumptions. Like Bo's challenge to widespread misinterpretation of the
intellectual level, David's critique deserves a hearing.

Regards,
Platt


On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:03 PM, David Thomas <combinedefforts at earthlink.net
> wrote:

> On 7/19/10 6:46 PM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not ideological bias, Dave. I'm not trashing his book because he's a
> > right-winger. I'm trashing because it's stupid. Honestly.
>
> I once went to a Halloween party as a Chinese philosopher called Tao-Ting
> Thomas so you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little skeptical. My intellect
> is possibly more omnivorous than yours. While driving I am just as likely
> to
> be listening to NPR as Rush Limbaugh. I find a varied intellectual menu
> both
> healthier and more enjoyable. I also eat meat and have voted for both
> Democrats and Republicans.
>
> But more to the point. Both Pirsig and Goldberg point to Woodrow Wilson as
> a
> pivotal figure in American culture. Both agree he was an intellectual.
>
> >[Lila 127]
> > Phaedrus thought that if he had to pick one day when the shift from
> social
> > domination of intellect to intellectual domination of society took place,
> he
> > would pick 11 November 1918, Armistice Day, the end of the First World
> War.
> > And if he had to pick one person who symbolized this shift more than any
> > other, he would have picked President Woodrow Wilson.
> > The picture of him Phaedrus would have selected is one in which Wilson
> rides
> > through New York City in an open touring car, doffing the magnificent
> silk hat
> > that symbolized his high rank in Victorian Society. For a cutline he
> would
> > select something from Wilson's penetrating speeches that symbolized his
> high
> > rank in the intellectual community: We must use our intelligence to stop
> > future war; social institutions cannot be trusted to function morally by
> > themselves; they must be guided by intellect.
>
> >[Liberal Fascism-Ch 3-Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism-pg
> 82]
> >There's no disputing that a big part of Wilson's appeal, then and now,
> stemmed
> >from the fact that he was the first Ph.D. To serve in the Oval Office. Of
> >course, the White House was no stranger to great minds and great scholars.
> But
> >Wilson was the first professional academic at a time when the
> >professionalization of social science was considered the cornerstone of
> human
> >progress. He was both a practitioner and priest of the cult of
> expertise-the
> >notion that human society was just another facet of the natural world and
> could
> >be mastered by the application of the scientific method. A onetime
> president of
> >the American Political Science Association, Wilson himself is widely
> credited
> >with having launched the academic study of public administration,....[See
> conclusion way way below]
>
> Where they diverge radically is on the consequences of this "shift from
> social domination of intellect to intellectual domination of society" under
> Wilson,Hitler,Stalin, and Mussolini. Because believe it or not they were
> all
> trying to do very similar things.
>
> > [Pirsig, Lila, p.311]
> > "...a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values
> > over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not."
>
> How could anybody disagree with this? If this is an always, an absolute
> then: Why are Indian cultures seen as so "good"  in ZaMM? Part of the
> problem is that he forgets:
>
> > [Lila-pg170]
> > James said, Truth is ONE SPECIES of good, and not, as is usually
> supposed, a
> > category distinct from good, and coordinate with it.' He said, 'The true
> is
> > the name of whatever PROVES itself to be good in the way of belief.' [MY
> EMPHASIS]
>
> If we turn to the supposed bastion of the intellect, science we find that
> theories or ideas are often false. An even when true, they may be only
> partially or provisionally true. And even then these truths are limited,
> are
> only ONE SPECIES of good not necessarily absolutely good for all human
> societies, everywhere, and for all times.
> For instance we have hundreds of years of science (intellectual patterns)
> about the good, the quality, the value, to be gained by selective breeding
> of plants and animals. Shouldn't this science be applied to the human
> animal? In the period in question right after WWI the answer was; Yes let's
> try it.
> Goldberg's account of experiments in eugenics* in the 20's and 30's show it
> was not limited to Nazi Germany but was implemented world wide to some
> degree or another including America. [ eugenics meaning: using state power
> to improve the racial, genetic, or biological health of the community]
>
> One would think that Pirsig being a "victim?" of these experiments would be
> a little more aware of the social consequences. Electroshock treatment
> coupled with involuntary commitment to mental institutions were based on
> the
> "best" science, the "best public policies"(think Wilson's academic
> [scientific] study of the public administration of "goods"), the "best
> thinking" available at the time. Pirsig's was a success story, many, many,
> more were not so lucky. So is it always better for intellectual patterns to
> dominant social patterns? I don't think so. It depends on whether they are
> good patterns or not. And saying that any intellectual pattern is
> automatically better than any social pattern is not only untrue it is truly
> dangerous. It leads to statements such as these:
>
> >[Lila 80]
> > That's what neither the socialists nor the capitalists ever got figured
> out.
> > From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. It's
> a
> > higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not
> just a
> > society that is guided by mindless traditions
>
> >[Lila 128]
> > The hurricane of social forces released by the overthrow of society by
> > intellect was most strongly felt in Europe, particularly Germany, where
> the
> > effects of the First World War were the most devastating. Communism and
> > socialism, programs for intellectual control over society, were
> confronted by
> > the reactionary forces of fascism, a program for the social control of
> > intellect. Nowhere were the intellectuals more intense in their
> determination
> > to overthrow the old order. Nowhere did the old order become more intent
> on
> > finding ways to destroy the excesses of the new intellectualism.
> > Phaedrus thought that no other historical or political analysis explains
> the
> > enormity of these forces as clearly as does the Metaphysics of Quality.
> The
> > gigantic power of socialism and fascism, which have overwhelmed this
> century,
> > is explained by a conflict of levels of evolution. This conflict explains
> the
> > driving force behind Hitler not as an insane search for power but as an
> > all-consuming glorification of social authority and hatred of
> intellectualism.
> > His anti-Semitism was fueled by anti-intellectualism. His hatred of
> communists
> > was fueled by anti-intellectualism. His exaltation of the German volk was
> > fueled by it. His fanatic persecution of any kind of intellectual freedom
> was
> > driven by it.
>
> His first problem is equating capitalism, an economic theory and practice,
> with socialism which is an all encompassing political theory a part of
> which
> is its economic theory.  In fact the case can and has been made over and
> over again that no socialist organization from Shaker communities to
> Communist China can survive without capitalism in some form or another. And
> those that move closer and closer to the socialist economic ideal ( even
> democracies, think Greece right now with 51% of their people employed by
> the
> government) will fail economically and thus in most other ways. The
> pragmatic PROOF that this is true, is that capitalism has, does, and
> continues to work with varying degrees of success under all types of
> political systems from dictatorships to democracies.
>
> But while it is true that centrally planned socialist or fascist economics
> kill dynamic potential; much more importantly RMP's evaluation completely
> glosses over the fact that they both include political theories that
> justify
> the extremely dynamic practice of intimidating, imprisoning, or killing
> anyone who does or might disagree with any of those theories or practices.
> Or who are deemed to have little value to society. All this based on the
> best possible "science" of course.
>
> > [Lila-pg 20]
> > But politics seldom depends on facts for its decisions.
>
> > [Lila-pg 122]
> > Politics, maybe, but politics mixes celebrity with static legal patterns
> and
> > isn't a pure study of celebrity. In fact, the way political science is
> taught
> > now, celebrity is made to look incidental to politics. But go to any
> political
> > gathering and see what's making it run. Watch the candidates jockey for
> > celebrity. They know what's making it run.
>
> > [Lila-pg 20]
> > there's a morality where social patterns triumph over biology, 'the law;'
>
> From these it's hard not to draw the conclusion that under the MoQ politics
> is anything but a social pattern. The general rule of the MoQ is while
> higher levels emerge out of and transcend lower levels the lower level is
> unaware of the upper level. Doesn't even know it exists. How is it that
> somehow politics (a social pattern) avoids this rule? The social/political
> biological/animal Hitler is both aware of and hates intellectual patterns?
> And all social/political social-ists are not only aware of the intellectual
> level they can and do manipulate it to create utopian "heavens on earth."
> That's why Hitler hates them all.
>
> What complete silliness.
>
> Both fascism and socialism are based on the crudest form of pragmatism. The
> ends justify the means. When I get in power I will define the ends and use
> any means available to me to get to them. Even if along the way they turn
> out not to be so good. If you don't like that I will get one of my boys to
> show you the light. Often by piercing a 9mm hole through your head and your
> wife's head, and your kids head, though not necessarily in that order.
>
> So why is RMP so wrong in his evaluation of fascism and socialism?
>
> The concluding phase in the Wilson quote way up above is.... "according to
> one's own personal biases." I believe that one of the attractions to you
> [DMB] in Pirsig's work is that his liberal biases syncs with yours.
>
> Congratulations you made it this far I had doubts that I would. I'm well
> aware that none of the above will meet with your approval accept the RMP
> quotes. I should quit here but a here just a little more.
>
> Why so much diversity and disagreement over the social/intellectual levels
> and their relationship?
>
> > [dmb In Levels thread...]
> > "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate
> > out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out of
> > inorganic nature... There is no direct scientific connection between mind
> > and matter. ...Our intellectual description of nature is always
> culturally
> > derived." (LILA)
>
> > [Krimel In Levels thread...]
> > Here you conflate life and mental patterns. Inorganic patterns, like
> > biological and social patterns are necessary but not sufficient
> conditions
> > for the production of mental patterns. Saying that we have not found all
> of
> > the connections between mind and matter is not the same as saying there
> are
> > none. There is quite a bit of evidence linking specific brain states to
> > specific mental states and I know of nothing whatever that would suggest
> > that they are not directly connected. I have been waiting for about four
> > years now for you to present evidence of a lack of connection. Feel free
> to
> > do so now.
>
> >[Bo in social/intellectual thread...]
> >  Social value is something much more basic that looks upon
> > intellect  as undermining TRADITION in all forms. To see the real
> > social vs intellectual struggle displayed look to the West vs Islam
> > conflict. There are scarcely any pure social patterns left in the Western
> > World, even its religion - Christendom - has been brought under
> > intellect's control. The Muslims who have moved to the West strive to
> > keep Islam out of intellect's influence,  if they will succeed is an open
> > issue.
>
> It's not your fault guys. I'm with Krimel. The levels structure and rules
> of
> the MoQ at first blush seem inspired. When closely examined and applied in
> detail, particularly on the upper two levels, it's shaky at best. Problem
> is
> if the roof goes eventually (if your lucky) you are left with very
> beautiful
> Greek ruins that are nice to look at. But they're hell to try and live in.
>
> Evacuate.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>