[MD] The MoQ and Politics?

[Mary]

Greetings Ian and John,

[John]
How does one weigh in on the side of the good, Ian?  A "good" question.
Which begs the answer, doesn't it.  You just do.  Simply by asking the
question and asking sincerely (faithfully) one taps into "the source".

[Mary]
I agree that we all know what is good, "need we ask anyone to tell us these
things", but the problem might be that there are so many different levels of
good.  Can you always say that you know what level of SPOVs resonates most
with any given person?  In the metaphysical hierarchy Pirsig constructed,
entities operating at every level recognize value based on the SPOVs of
their level, and though we also know that the SPOVs of higher levels are
more 'valuable' than those of lower, we still have to respect those lower
values too.  I think it is always a dangerous game when a higher level
attempts to compete with or dominate a lower one.  Since politics seems
predominantly a Social level phenomenon, it is tricky indeed for the
Intellectual to intervene.  There are always unintended consequences.
Where the Social dominates the Biological, for instance, probably took
millions of years to work out - and it's still not satisfactorily done.
Observe racial and gender equality issues still as contentious today as ever
in some quarters.  These, in my mind, represent Social level efforts to
dominate the Biological.

[John]
So since it's so simple, the next question that is raised in my mind, is why
then is there any problem at all?  Since we all know what Quality; since we
all have access to the apprehension of this fundamental guide, why is there
anything wrong?

[Mary]
As I see it, what's wrong is the competing nature of values and the value
hierarchy.  Just because we all have brains that function more or less the
same doesn't mean we all operate at the Intellectual level.

{John]
That's the big question.  The quick answer that occurs to me is selfishness.
People care more for their self-interest than they do for what is good.  Or
most conveniently, they define what lies in their self-interest as "what is
good".  It's a pure logic, with a faulty premise, and it's predicated upon a
Subject-Oriented Metaphysical stance which has come to
dominate the world.   In a values-free matrix, the last bastion of values is
the self.

[Mary]
Well, geez, John, that's a bit depressing, though I do agree in a sense.
I'm still working this all out to my satisfaction, but so far, I'm inclined
to say the rudimentary ego arose in the Biological level.  Ego is a
necessary precondition for the Social level to exist, as I see it.  I don't
recall Pirsig making statements about how skip-level interactions might
work, but I'm thinking that the only way the Intellectual could effectively
harness the ego would be through a Social level conduit.  The Intellectual
level changing the Social level which in turn could control the Biological.
That may be why the most successful politicians make an emotional connection
with their constituents first, and only then move them toward new ideas.  

[John]
So... back to your "how".

Explicating the patterns allows the participants to contemplate and choose
to step outside of the patterns.  There is no other how than this.  And it
often doesn't work because even when they see their own selfishness laid
open, people still often choose it anyway.  Obviously, SOM is a choice, the
world as it is, is the result.

[Mary]
You could say that the lower levels are much more rigidly statically
latched.  That could account for the power of attraction to lower patterns
in the face of clearly improved higher ones.


Take care,
Mary