[MD] A horsefly in the anti-SOLism ointment.
skutvik at online.no
skutvik at online.no
Sun Mar 21 13:40:45 PDT 2010
Hi Mary and Marsha
Thanks a lot. Here have I kept this SOL issue going for years,
insisting on LILA promoting it (the S/O interpretation of intellect) only
with Lila's Child did Pirsig loose his bearings . I have thought about
compiling all these passages, but, I never got down to the task and
here Mary presents it with chapter references and all. I really
appreciated this and am grateful for Marsha's support, you will both
be rewarded ;-).
The critics will possibly point to not many of these quotes not actually
saying that Intellect = SOM, but at least that about Socrates
does.
"... the day Socrates died to establish the independence of
intellectual patterns from their social origins. Or the day
Descartes decided to start with himself as an ultimate source
of reality. These were days of evolutionary transformation.
Socrates and the Greeks spells SOM, and so does Descartes, but all
indicates intellect as a static level which purpose is to control social
value, and what controls social value is the OBJECTIVE over
SUBJECTIVE attitude that makes social values into mere "beliefs".
At least intellect is no mind-like compartment that contains all "ideas"
since the first humanoids lived in Africa, it is as the MOQ says a static
level with a very well-defined purpose.
> A horse could be mastered if your resolve was firm, your disposition
> pleasant and fear absent.
Thanks again Mary you made my day.
.
Bodvar
On 21 Mar 2010 at 10:35, Mary wrote:
> Some quotes from Lila for Horse...
>
> . Is society
> going to dominate intellect or is intellect going to dominate society?
> And if society wins, what's going to be left of intellect? And if
> intellect wins what's going to be left of society?
>
> . Intellect is
> not an extension of society any more than society is an extension of
> biology. Intellect is going its own way, and in doing so is at war
> with society, seeking to subjugate society
>
> Ch 21
> Once intellect has been let out of the bottle of social restraint, it
> is almost impossible to put it back in again. And it is immoral to
> try. A society that tries to restrain the truth for its own purposes
> is a lower form of evolution than a truth that restrains society for
> its own purposes.
>
> Ch 22
> When the social climate changes from
> preposterous social restraint of all intellect to a relative
> abandonment of all social patterns, the result is a hurricane of
> social forces. That hurricane is the history of the twentieth
> century.
>
> , the day Socrates died to establish the independence
> of intellectual patterns from their social origins. Or the day
> Descartes decided to start with himself as an ultimate source of
> reality. These were days of evolutionary transformation.
>
> 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 November 11, 1918, Armistice Day, the end of
> World War I. 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 Phædrus 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 can not be trusted to function morally by themselves;
> they must be guided by intellect. Wilson belonged in both worlds,
> Victorian society and the new intellectual world of the twentieth
> century: the only university professor ever to be elected president of
> the United States.
>
> New technology fueled the change.
>
> . The mastery of all
> these new changes was no longer dominated by social skills. It
> required a technologically trained, analytic mind. A horse could be
> mastered if your resolve was firm, your disposition pleasant and fear
> absent. The skills required were biological and social. But handling
> the new technology was something different. Personal biological and
> social qualities didn't make any difference to machines.
>
> The times were chaotic, but it was a chaos of social patterns only.
>
> But it was only social value patterns being
> destroyed by new intellectual formulations.
> The events that excited people in the twenties were events that
> dramatized the new dominance of intellect over society.
>
> Literature emphasized the
> struggle of the noble, free-thinking individual against the crushing
> oppression of evil social conformity. The Victorians were damned for
> their narrow-mindedness, their social pretentiousness. The test of
> what was good, of what had Quality, was no longer "Does it meet
> society's approval?" but "Does it meet the approval of our intellect?"
>
> It was this issue of intellect versus society that made the Scopes
> trial of 1925 such a journalistic sensation.
>
> Only religious fanatics and ignorant Tennessee
> hillbillies opposed the teaching of Evolution.
>
> . 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.
>
> Phædrus 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. In the United States the economic and social upheaval
> was not so great as in Europe, but Franklin Roosevelt and the New
> Deal, nevertheless, became the center of a lesser storm between social
> and intellectual forces. The New Deal was many things, but at the
> center of it all was the belief that intellectual planning by the
> government was necessary for society to regain its health.
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:14 AM from Horse
> >
> > Hi Mary
> >
> > The Intellectual Level is created by Intellectual Patterns of Value.
> > Not all Intellectual Pattens of Value are either subjects or
> > objects.
>
> [Mary Replies]
> Hi Horse!
> Speaking with absolute respectfulness and sincerity, you will have to
> explain to me what Intellectual Patterns are not subjects or objects.
> Seriously. I cannot think of any.
>
> > This creates a problem for Bo so he has to try and re-classify those
> > Intellectual Patterns which are not S/O as Social Patterns.
> [Mary Replies]
> If you are referring to things like Buddhism, then you'll have to
> explain to me how those differ from any other belief system, since we
> should be able to agree that belief systems in general reside in the
> Social Level.
>
> > This creates all sorts of problems and results in a mangling of the
> > MoQ in order to accommodate Bo's ideas. A Metaphysics is an
> > Intellectual Pattern of Value and SOM is one of a number of
> > metaphysical systems (S/O, Process, Quality etc.- and this is only
> > the Western systems - there are plenty more Eastern based systems)
> > and all exist within the Intellectual level and are created by IPOV.
> [Mary Replies]
> Perhaps, but it could be argued that all Metaphysics is an attempt to
> construct a belief system.
>
> > Creating new levels for each metaphysics is absurd.
> [Mary Replies]
> I agree with that.
>
> > Are you, like Bo, denying that those huge bodies of Eastern
> > philosophy (which are not SOM) are not Intellectual Patterns of
> > Value when they emerged without the benefit of SOM? Are you saying
> > that all non-SOM metaphysical systems are either variations of SOM
> > or only exist at the Social level?
> [Mary Replies]
> To clarify, I'd need you to name the Eastern philosophies you are
> referring to so I could read about them, but in general I would say
> they are probably Social Level POVs.
>
> > Do you see where this is leading? Bo has to dismiss, deny or
> > denigrate everything that Pirsig has said which is/are counter to
> > Bo's mistaken notions - implying that Pirsig is so foolish and naive
> > that he doesn't even understand his own work!!!! Additionally, he
> > dishonestly claims that Pirsig pretty much agrees with him that his
> > pet theory is correct, even when Pirsig specifically rejects this in
> > the same letter!
> [Mary Replies]
> I love you and I love Bo. You are both what I consider to be old
> friends from long ago. I think I see your point, though I don't
> really agree with it, and I also see Bo's, though not in the same way
> Bo does.
>
> I don't recall Pirsig denouncing Eastern Philosophy in Lila. He
> basically omitted the subject. He wrote a book targeting Western
> readers in a Western context to challenge Western patterns of thought.
> He was being highly critical of subject-object metaphysics - which is
> the entire basis for all of Western science and Western religion. He
> does owe Eastern philosophy a great debt. Based on my (admittedly
> limited) understanding of Eastern philosophy, he took it and ran with
> it.
>
> The Metaphysics of Quality is something entirely new. A workable way
> to modify SOM <for the Western mind> using Buddhism as its base. This
> became clear to me reading Khoo's posts of the last month or so.
> That's not meant to denigrate Pirsig's accomplishment at all! What he
> did was a gigantic mental leap, one I think would only be possible for
> someone with a profound understanding of both Eastern and Western
> philosophies. He is showing us a way forward using the best of both
> worlds.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mary
>
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > Horse
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21/02/2010 23:36, Mary wrote:
> > > HI Horse,
> > >
> > > Wow. I tend to agree with Bo. At least most of what he says.
> > > The Intellectual Level is SOM. Please explain how I am incorrect.
> > > I am
> > not
> > > arguing, would just like to know.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
> > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to
> > skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body
> > thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a
> > ride!"... Hunter S Thompson
> >
> >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
>
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list