[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[Horse]

Hi Mary
Comments follow:

On 21/03/2010 15:35, 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.
>    

The above show that Pirsig supports the moral hierarchy of the MoQ - 
i.e. that Intellectual patterns of Value should dominate Social patterns 
of Value. In the above, where is he showing support for Bo's idea that 
the Intellectual level consists of purely Subjects and Objects?


>    
>> 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.
>    

In the same spirit:

Zero
Infinity
while (1) {};
;)

>    
>> 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.
>    

No. Belief systems are propagated through the Social level (as memes?) - 
they do not originate at the Social level but at the Intellectual level 
as ideas. There's a big difference.
Think in terms of networks and E.g. the TCP/IP stack (or the OSI model 
if you prefer). How does an idea get from one person to another in terms 
of static patterns of Value? Down the Value stack one side and up the 
stack the other!


>    
>> 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.
>    

Then you need to be consistent in how you treat metaphysical systems - 
in which case both S/O Metaphysics (SOM) and Quality Metaphysics (MoQ) 
and other metaphysical systems are Social patterns of Value and the 
Intellectual level disappears - this is the problem that occurs when you 
mangle the MoQ as Bo does. When you consider metaphysics as Intellectual 
patterns of Value the problem doesn't exist and the Intellectual level 
is a sound platform for competing metaphysical systems. Which is most 
useful at any given time (like polar co-ordinates) is based on context 
and explanatory power.

>    
>> Creating new levels for each metaphysics is absurd.
>>      
> [Mary Replies]
> I agree with that.
>    

Good


>    
>> 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.
>    

Google can provide you with what you need here - bearing in mind what 
I've said above and the quotes that you have provided - especially the 
quote regarding Woodrow Wilson. Read through that again and think about 
it carefully.

>    
>> 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.
>    

Love you too Mary - and I still miss your Dad. I wonder what he would 
have made of this conversation.

> 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.
>    

Much of western science is based around the idea of materialism - which 
relates to SOM. But not all western thinking is to do with science and 
not all science is strictly SOM. Have you had a poke around Process 
metaphysics? Very interesting and not very S/O oriented - it has a lot 
more in common with MoQ than SOM.

> 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.
>    

I'd agree with you here Mary and keep in mind that, in doing this, 
Pirsig has specifically rejected Bo's SOL interpretation - and with good 
reason. Contrary to what Bo would have you believe, Pirsig understands 
his own work better than Bo and, in my opinion, Pirsig is where the 
smart money's placed.

> Best wishes,
> Mary
>
>    
>

Good to talk with you Mary

Take care


Horse


-- 

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