[MD] The MoQ and Politics?

[John Carl]

Hi Mary,


> [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?



I think you nail it on the head, right there.  The solution is first,
defining the level upon which you are contemplating, finding agreement at
THAT level can be tricky because if somebody disagrees, well all they have
to do is shift levels.




> 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:

Having a clear way to discuss the levels is a good thing the MoQ has done.
However, the supposed discreteness of the levels has been and continues to
be a big problem when we try and figure out where social patterns leave off,
and intellectual patterns begin.  Biological and inorganic boundaries are
not nearly so problematic, but intellect and society are.

This is well understood, otherwise, Pirisg wouldn't have posed the problem
of telling the messiahs from the degenerates as an open-ended problem.


>
> [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:

Right.  How many intellectuals, for instance, use social-level authority or
the strength of popularity to quash their opponents?  Most, that's how many.



> {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.


John:

I agree.  The fundamental component of the social level is the ego - the
distinction of self from other.  That's the way I see it too.

Mary:

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:

I can see how a truly successful politician is one that elucidates "old
ideas" - preconceived positions of their constituencies.  A "good"
politician is like a "good" student who just figures out what the teacher
wants to hear and then says it.  Creativity is something that the whole
system militates against.



>
> [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.
>
>
John:

Right. There is always more Dynamism at a higher level than a lower.  But
dynamism, like creativity, is something that the whole system opposes.

Thanks for the interesting dialogue, Mary,

John