[MD] Intellectual Level

[Mary]

Hi Platt & John!

Been away for a while charged with being on a committee to figure out how to
bring quality to my workplace.  Can you imagine?  I'd love to discuss this
with all you fine people in the discuss, but I can't figure out how to do
that without getting 'discovered' - and I need this job.  

Anyway, saw this one, John, and appreciate it!  " We have equal rights, but
that's not the same as being
equally right."

How about this corollary? We all equally have the right to be wrong.

Hugs,
Mary

- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.

On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:16 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual Level
> 
> Hello Platt,
> 
> I started this earlier, and got side-tracked a bit, and it goes on a
> bit,
> but then, that's me!
> 
> 
> 
> > John:  But according to the most eminent of scientists, philosophy is
> dead.
> >  How would one address this conundrum?  How can they be persuaded
> > otherwise?
> >
> > [Platt]:
> > I would ask the eminent scientist if he values his conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> John:
> 
> Right!  This ties in to something I've been pondering of Royce's
> Loyalty to
> Loyalty metaphysical stance.  That's its very similar to Pirsig's
> caring
> about Quality.  And what is Quality but caring?  So caring about
> caring,
> loyalty to loyalty, same thing.
> 
> Platt:
> 
>  But, what I think he really means in saying
> 
> > philosophy is dead is that religion is dead because a Creator isn't
> needed
> > to
> > explain the universe. It arouse spontaneously from nothing. To which
> I
> > would
> > say, "Then nothing is really something."
> >
> >
> John:
> 
> Well fundamentally, I think there is an effort being made, that has
> moral
> roots.  There was this whole dominance of culture by religion, for so
> long,
> that needed to be opposed, that science evolved a pragmatic way of
> dealing
> with that whole mess .  Basically by positing a values-free cosmos.
> But in
> a way they've gotten blinders put on by their enemy.  And science is
> supposed to be about removing blinders. So they're sort of stuck.  The
> poor
> dears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > [Platt]
> > I think the primary reason knowledge is social is because it's coded
> in
> > language which is social.
> 
> 
> John:  I got fascinated with goat keeping for a while.  I picked up a
> book
> called "goatwalking" at the Nevada county fair one year, there was a
> booth
> from a school I'd heard a lot of good things - John Woolman School, a
> Quaker
> school, but liberally sprinkled with hippy children so prevalent in the
> this
> area in the 70's.  Anyway, a teacher at that school had written a book
> about
> survival in the wilderness with goats.  He said it was possible to live
> off
> the land in deserts, with no water, with just two milk goats per
> person.
>  The man gets his water and nutrition from the goat, the goat gets hers
> from
> the browse and the desert morning dew.
> 
> He was a very good writer.  He'd also been instrumental in founding the
> sanctuary movement of the reagan era, which had been a pre-cursor to
> the
> pain in the ass immigration problems of today, but the whole concept of
> people who are uncontrollable, he called it, "going cimmaron" because
> they
> are mobile and self-sufficient and thus autonomous, stuck with me to
> this
> day.
> 
> He had many interesting insights to share in that book.  One was the
> reflection that the first religious impulse of man, concerned his
> offering
> to God from two differing perspectives.  Cain was a gardener, a tiller
> of
> the soil.  A grower of things and a developer of real estate.  Abel was
> a
> lazy-ass dreamer, a follower of sheep and did nothing to "earn" his
> sustenance except leach off the benefits of mammalian ungulates.  And
> this
> dichotomy, offer the only two ways we can be fed on this world-
> agriculturally or hunter/gather/herder.  And the interesting sting in
> the
> story, was that God prefered the lazy shepards to the industrious
> tillers of
> the soil.
> 
> That bible!  What a joke!
> 
> But where were we?  Oh yeah, the other thing I remember he said is that
> goats follow the herd leader.  They browse on what the herd queen
> shows.
>  He's had experience of goats marching past rose bushes, ( a goat
> favorite)
> on their way to the place that the herd queen showed them.  This is
> socially
> transmitted knowledge, with no language except body- language
> necessary.
> 
> But this is herd knowledge, not individual knowledge.
> 
> Here's the thing with knowledge.  Until it's communicated, any
> knowledge or
> any word is meaningless.  For a word to be meaningful, there must be a
> speaker, and a hearer. If "in the beginning was the word" means what I
> think
> it means,  then relationship itself, is fundamental to reality.
> 
> 
> Platt:
> 
> 
> > But, truth is tricky. At one time the social
> > construct was that the earth was flat. Not true. Today, the social
> > construct is
> > that values are subjective. Not true. So I don't believe in the
> collective
> > wisdom of individual ignorance.
> >
> >
> John:  And I agree completely, of course.  There's something about
> truth
> that compels past popularity. But there is social agreement apart from
> popular crowds, as well.  A small community of consensus and
> reinforcement
> must be there to keep any individual with excellent ideas going.  In
> fact,
> it seems for full quality to be realized, the balance between
> popularity and
> obscurity has to be just right. An almost impossible task in today's
> media-frenzied feed-back loops and why we see so little true Arete in
> our
> leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > [Platt]
> > The problem I have is one man's idea intellectual quality is another
> man's
> > claptrap.
> 
> 
> John:  Well you have to make value judgments about men.  Men might all
> have
> been created equal, but they don't turn out that way.  A low quality
> person's ideas about "intellectual quality" don't matter as much to me
> as a
> person I'd deem high quality.  It seems to me that a sort of "jesus
> loves
> everybody" bland religous teaching has permeated our secular culture in
> unhealthy ways.  We have equal rights, but that's not the same as being
> equally right.
> 
> 
> Platt:
> 
> 
> 
> > Science thinks it has a monopoly on intellectual quality, but what
> > scientific theory tells us freedom of religion is an individual
> right?
> 
> 
> John:
> 
> It is particularly infuriating because of the self-confidence.  Science
> should rather be honestly uncertain, than dogmatically attached.
> 
> 
> Platt:
> 
> 
> > Here on
> > this site there's a lot of what might be called intellectual quality
> that
> > strives for agreement but fails, like the MOQ's intellectual level
> > belonging
> > to SOM alone.
> 
> 
> 
> John:
> 
> Well I am encouraged to think of it as an infinite process.  Royce has
> been
> a help there.  And there are places in my thinking that I've adapted
> and
> changed because of arguments presented here, and I'm sure you can say
> the
> same.  So if you're getting somewhere, you can take the eventual
> destination
> on faith somewhat.  As a shared given.
> 
> For me, it's plain that the 4th level represents something special -
> man's
> thinking prowess, however you want to define it, is a unique phenomena
> in
> our wide-ranging explorations of the universe.  A Subject/Object
> metaphysics
> just isn't big enough to contain all we know and understand of the
> world as
> we find it.  "No serious thinker holds the view for long."  Says Royce,
> and
> yet you hold it Platt.  And you are obviously a serious thinker.  How
> can
> you hold this view for so long?
> 
> I'm guessing, just to get a reaction.  Your specialty, imo.
> 
> Platt:
> 
> 
> > Anyway I'm suspicious of establishing truth by poll. I think
> > social agreement often gets in the way of DQ. New ideas have a hard
> time
> > getting accepted. The brujo, for example, took a beating from his
> society.
> > History is moved forward by one man with an idea,. like Ghandi and
> King.
> > But
> > you're right about social change ultimately needing social approval.
> >
> 
> John:
> 
> I've been thinking about this since I read part of a book called,
> Fifteen
> Decisive Battles of the World, the first battle mentioned was Marathon.
> I
> started to describe it to you, but decided to do that in another
> thread.
> Besides, it's fairly well know book and you might have already read it.
> 
> It's even got it's own wiki
> page<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_W
> orld>
> .
> 
> The author makes an awfully interesting point about the way intellect
> influences social changes in that book. Hopefully I'll expand on this a
> bit
> sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> > [Platt]
> > "Objectifying the subject" strikes me as still being SOM.
> 
> 
> 
> John:
> 
> I agree, if any stopping place is conceived.  As an ongoing process,
> however, I think it transcend's SOM.
> 
> For one thing, as I think Borge's reference to the self-referential map
> problem points out,  any reference to the territory must include
> itself, and
> thus the need for an ongoing new map. A problem of infinite regress.
> 
>  that we can't ultimately objectify ourselves - that "know thyself" is
> an
> infinite process - does not detract us from engaging in that process
> and
> realizing that that process, IS us.
> 
> Platt:
> 
> 
> > "Valuing the subject"
> > is transcending SOM. But, by being "glib" I think you're on the right
> > track.
> > When Pirsig writes stuff like "Quality has Lila." he's being glib,
> but
> > profound
> > at the same time. Maybe I'm just partial to glibness, like "Science
> can't
> > explain why it is good," "Feelings won't feed the baby," and "No one
> is
> > obliged
> > to understand anything." Most "intellectual" prose has too much
> popcorn
> > surrounding the nugget of knowledge it offers. My motto: "Tell me
> quick and
> > tell me true, otherwise, the hell with you."
> >
> >
> John:
> 
> You got good mottos, Platt.   why I love you, no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > [Platt]
> > Not a tricky dance to me. I just remember that every new regulation
> is
> > another
> > chink out of individual freedom to choose. Now it's gotten so bad
> they are
> > starting to tell us what we can and cannot eat. Little by little,
> step by
> > step,
> > freedom is eroded. Of course, it's always for our own good.
> Authoritarians
> > always know best, whether parents, professors or politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> John:  There's a trend, it seems.  The trend has to do with
> technological
> power.  The more technological power man has, the more he has to be
> regulated.  Man's technological power is constantly increasing,
> (moore's
> law, et al) so the regulation of man has to keep pace.
> 
> And yeah, it gives me the shivers too.
> 
> But what are ya gonna do?  Live on the land and ignore the bastard's
> rules?
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm tryin'  Platt.  I'll let you know how it works out.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 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