Roger,
> In the mean time, let me assure you that you are right that Pirsig aligns
> more with your view concerning human rights. Check out chapters 13 and
24.
I knew He is on my side :-)
You also?
>
> Where we actually go astray is in the definition of the intellectual
level.
> What you are describing as the intellect leading society, I am
categorizing
> as society learning and evolving.
But the MOQ says that every level will morally dominate the level below. So
it's moral for the intellect to dominate the social, without destroying it.
If you suggest that TODAY the society is evolving and learning without the
rule of intellect, you just say that the intellectual level has not been
still established.
> You see , I disagree with the definition
> of Magnus' that you offerred -- that an intellectual pattern is
'something
> that has meaning'.
Great! I offered it as a sort of Trojan Horse, in order to make the
discussion take off. In facts, I assumed the Magnus' sentence as the first
step. This was my answer:
==================
MARCO (6 June 2000, with few modifications: )
"But if a want to define "meaning" I can't find a better way than
"Intellectual value". So Magnus' sentence becomes: <<An intellectual
[static] pattern [of value] is something that has an intellectual value>>.
Does Lila have quality? No, "it's Quality that has Lila". "She's created
by it". Does something have meaning? No: the "thing" is created by it's
meaning [....] this English term is derived from "Mind", so it seems to
refer to something that is contained in (or created by) mind, while our
Italian (Latin-derived) term is "Significato" (signification) that is
literally "Made of signs".
<<An intellectual pattern is made of signs>>.
Good, but not enough.
Intellectual patterns are small pieces of DQ turned into a static
intellectual form. When we take a small piece of DQ and put it into a
"made-of-signs" form we create an intellectual pattern. The tool we use to
create intellectual patterns is IMHO intelligence (Latin "Intelligere" from
"In" and "legere"=to read ) that is the skill to "read into". [...]
This is the first step. Then we need a tool to communicate (Latin again :
"Communicare"=to make it common) our reading to someone else. So we use a
set of signs, a code (language), to share these values. Intellect is
impossible without a social level, as it would be useless to read into
reality without sharing the resulting static values with someone else.
In conclusion, my definition of intellectual pattern is:
<<Intellectual static patterns of value are small pieces of dynamic quality
turned by
intelligence into a coded and socially shareable form >>. "
=============================
Sorry for my self-quotation, it is to explain as well as I can my point. You
probably will find the source of my words in one of my firsts months in LS,
when Denis (tchao Denis! Are you still around?) suggested language as the
"machine code" for intellectual patterns. I've just extended his insight
adding intelligence as maker of intellectual patterns, using the generic
term "code" instead of "language", and pointing out the importance of social
communication.
>From this point, it's clear that modern art is a form of language, as it can
be used to communicate significations ( for example: the author's thoughts
and feelings). Ergo, art can be intellectual. It depends on the purpose of
the artist, and of the beholder/user of the masterpiece.
> I could go on extensively, and would like to, but it needs
> to be next weekend if you are game.
Here I am....
>
>
> The roots of this issue go back to the famous December of 98 donnybrook
> where Jonathan challenged us whether there IS a separate intellectual
level.
> For the record, I joined his camp for about a week before striking out on
> another tangent. (Do Italians know what 'Donnybrooks' are?)
>
My on-line dictionary translates it as "wild brawl". We know exactly what
wild brawls are! If you will ever come to Italy, you will see.
One of my few regrets here is that I arrived too late. I missed so many
past discussions, and I've no time enough to read everything. As I could be
wrong, please try to convince me about the value of your viewpoint.... a
good intellectual competition is just what we need! :-)
> If something that has no meaning THAT different from something with no
> value?
>
The difference resides in the fact that meaning (or significance) exists
when intelligence "defines" the perceived value by the use of signs in order
to share it socially. For example, the cat feed has an high biological
value, but no "meaning", to my cat.
> PS -- I forgot to say how much I enjoyed your "right to beauty."
>
Thanks. You see, I think this must become the intellectual mot. As well as
the
policeman (who is leading a social function) HAS TO SAY we have
intellectual rights, I hope it will come the day in which scientists and
technologists and politics will HAVE TO SAY we have rights to something that
is more important than any intellectual, rational, economic, philosophic,
even MOQistic principle.
Last year on MF we had a month about the fifth level: among many candidates
(No fifth level, irrationality, uncertainty, spirituality, fantasy,
emotions, .....) no one suggested beauty, if I remember well. It's a Platt
suggestion I found here on MD and I'm meditating about it. I tend to be
careful about any 5th level, as it "smells of phlogiston"...
Can beauty be intellectual? If we identify intellect just with S/O Logic or
science, no. But if intellect (as I guess) is just a baby and it's possible
to enlarge it, well.... why not?
tks
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST