[MD] Intellectual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hey John,

Good points! I'm with you. In answer to "What are ya gonna do?"
those goats sound pretty good to me. Makes me wonder why there
hasn't been a culture built around goat herds. Compared to cows, pigs
and sheep, goats appear to be superior in many respects, although
goat steaks may not have the same appeal has T-bones. Ever have
a goat barbecue? Maybe we're missing something.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:15 PM
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]
I try to not think S/O like but it's a losing battle. I'm surrounded by S/O 
devotees.

> 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_World>
>
> 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]
I look forward to your further comments on the subject.

>> [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]
Like Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and it 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]
Back atcha.

>> [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