At 8:55 PM -0800 1/4/80, John Beasley wrote:
>But he discriminates between two modes of thought, one of which is an
>image-making
>process based on memory, the other linked to a "healthy, common sense,
>wiser intelligence."
Hello? This caught my attention as I've continued to become engaged in a
line of thinking that mirrors this exactly - there are two modes of
thought, word and image - that correspond to two ways of human sensory
input, ears and eyes.
Reality is a function of images.
Truth is a function of words.
>The link with Krishnamurti, via David Bohm, who was a friend of Crane's,
>is strong. So the
>issue becomes, how does anyone judge 'reality'?
You would judge reality by seeing, just as you would judge truth by
word-based analysis/synthesis.
I'm still wrestling with this, but it seems to me that Quality includes
BOTH reality and truth.
>Are we all so locked into our own little self
>created worlds that we can only talk past each other when it comes to what
>is, >even if that
>includes quality? Pirsig in ZMM suggests that everyone recognizes quality
>when >they see it,
>and then destroys his own argument with his test with his writing class -
>two >students chose
>the supposedly low quality text as the best. How do we show them they are
>>wrong? As
>someone has already said re this issue, it is not a case for majority
>votes, or the Bruni would
>have been in the wrong. This is a fundamental issue.
I do believe you are correct. This is fundamental. I think that
consensus on true quality can be reached with rigorous word-based analysis.
Whenever you come to point that consensus is reached, you have an agreed
upon "reality" - which is a static construct of thought - an "image" even
if it's just a conceptual image (Oh, now I SEE) Thus, the ratchet of
static quality.
Truth is closer to dynamic quality on the intellectual level. Open to
interpretation and ongoing debate.
On the level of intellect:
Reality = Static Quality = images
Truth = Dynamic Quality = words
>
>One of the things which has quite frankly discouraged me as a member of
>this forum has
>been watching each new participant reveal their mental 'blinkers'. When
>issues arise, as for
>example the debate over Truman's use of the bomb, we see arguments trotted
>out that would
>be laughable if it were not that their proponents seem to believe them;
>need to believe them
>to protect their world views. Sometimes the views expressed are, to me,
>simply appalling.
>And of course I am just protecting my equally biassed view - that's if
>there is NO way of
>discriminating what is real. If our opinions are all of equal value, and
>are equally relative,
>then our debate becomes an amusement, with no significance at all.
By my above interpretation - those aspects of each arguement that are
"laughable" can be shown to be so using the tools of reason and logic and
the ongoing dialogue which brings the inconsistencies out is the process
which leads to quality.
>I do not believe this is the case. However, I will readily concede that
>much of what I or
>anybody else holds to be self evident may well prove to be projection. For
>the person who is
>seeking wisdom, how do I discriminate between what is my own construction,
>protecting my
>own ego, and what might have some veracity for others with different
>experiences? Is there
>any commonality, or are we islands of consciousness in a vast unknown ocean?
>
>Krishnamurti and Bohm, in a conversation I have quoted before have
>explored how
>intelligence differs from thought. Intelligence is the ability to read
>between the lines, to
>encounter what is, free of the 'mind forged manacles' of memory and
>experience. We can
>only learn language, for example, because at some level we can link new
>words with
>something intelligible in the field not previously discriminated. This is
>an important, for
>humans a hugely important, ability. It is a way of accessing quality that
>is different to the
>quality experienced in art, for example.
Yes, that corresponds to my thinking on the subject. The Word is related
to language (of course!) and also the formation of logic chains using
connatations and hierarchies of meaning.
Art leans toward the holistic image.
> Pirsig's quality needs to get complex to deal with
>these issues. Bohm attempted to set up Dialogue or Participatory Thought
>groups, to bring
>about a much more efficient, holistic and productive standard of
>scientific and professional
>communication. He was a believer in the implicit becoming explicit, the
>enfolded unfolding. In
>this view intelligence is sensitivity, the brain becoming sensitive to
>influences which it as
>insensitive to before. The quality of attention is critical to this (and
>this includes attending to
>thought). Thinking is actually reduced as attention is developed, and
>insight flows from
>increased attention.
Makes sense to me. The concepts when brought forth and analyzed lead to
higher-archies of pattern recognition and manipulation. Concepts of
concepts, meaning of meaning - meta analysis. And it seems there is a
social sphere to this ongoing evolution. An individual's dialogue with
himself is going to be pretty limited, no? Thus the ongoing development
of intellectual quality is dependent upon social support! This is less of
a hierarchy than we have been picturing, and more of a yin/yang flow
between levels.
>
>It may be that the future belongs to those who can risk the most open and
>vulnerable
>communication, sharing their sensitivity to what attention has provided them.
I really like this thought. Well, I guess I would since it's pretty much
what we're engaged in at the moment....
Poor Leuchter
>was too busy proving his own twisted myth correct to even hope to attend
>to anything which
>might contradict his previously formed opinions.
>
>But this is a moral tale. Was Leuchter evil? I say yes. Evil might
>usefully be defined as the
>holding to static patterns of belief (prejudice, neurosis) in the face of
>the potential for
>dynamic experience.
Ok, I'll buy that.
So are we all evil? Of course. Then if evil is so commonplace it can't be
>so bad? There are no words to say how bad it is, how destructive it is,
>how pervasive it is.
>Can this ever change? I hope so.
>
>John B
>
John B., I find complete congruence with your thoughts and mine. I've
never studied Krishnamurti or Bohm, but you've got me interested in your
sources.
jc
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:35 BST