Elliot, Bo and all MOQers:
I snipped most of this message simply to focus on what seems like the most
crucial question: where does the intellectual level begin? Pirsig says that
he felt it was not necessary to define the 4th level because anyone up to
the task of reading Lila should already know what it is. In response to
questions about it, however, he provides a definition in Lila's Child.
There, the operative phrase, the key phrase is "manipulation of
language-derived symbols". And it seems that understanding the difference
between the 3rd and 4th level depends upon comprehending that key phrase.
> >DMB said:
> >There's no denying it. There was a great intelligence in the social
> >level. It created language, art, civilization and religion. And even
> >the spoken language is an exercise in the manipulation of words and
> >pictures, which are symbols. But the manipulation of language-derived
> >symbols is a step above that. Are you more confused than ever or did
> >that help?
> >Thanks. You can have your eyes back now. DMB
> Elliot rsponded:
> Well, it will all make sense once you explain to me the difference
> between symbols and language derived symbols. in the pirsig
> annotation he didnt seem to be stressing any sort of distinction
> between the two.
Bo added:
Having been reprimanded by David about the SOLAQI I can only say
that this quandary springs from the impossible definition of q-intellect
that most of you harbour. With a cropped-down intellect it's no problem.
I agree with Elliot that language already is a manipulation of symbols,
and that "language derived symbols" don't add anything.
DMB tries to answer:
It seems to me that defining the intellectual level might be difficult, but
its not impossible. And much of the difficulty comes from trying to grasp
the difference between it and social level thinking, or between intellectual
level communication and social level language. This is precisely why the
phrase "language-derived" is so crucial. You probably recall that Pirsig
says that all intellectual constructions must be "culturally derived". This
is just another way to express the same basic idea. Both language and
culture are social level creatures and by definition the intellectual level
thoughts depend on it AND must transcend it. I suspect you're both with me
so far. It seems that the best way to point out the difference is to provide
a contrasting list of things or activites.
Language at the social level______VS______Language-dervied intellectual
level
thinking..................................philosophizing
understanding.............................epistemology
myth making...............................comparative mythology
writing a poem............................literary deconstruction
religious doctrines.......................comparative religious studies
speaking a language.......................linguistic analysis
party politics............................political science
counting and accounting...................algebra and calculus
reading a newspaper.......................media analysis
johnny carson.............................david letterman
OK, that last one was a joke, but you get the idea. In some very real way,
the intellectual level things and activities are DERIVED from the social
level. The social level necessarily comes first, but the intellectual list
is distinctly different. From a class called "The Philosophy of Language" I
recall that there were thinkers who tried to invent a "meta-language" in
order to talk objectively about language. (It didn't work out very well.)
Or, in the same vein, there is a word in ancient Greek that means, "to think
about what you think". Thinking and reading and speaking does involve the
use of symbols, but all of this kind of activity has been taking place for
tens of thousands of years and can't rightly be called intellectual. It
requires intelligence and a brain and all that, but its still not
intellectual. Heck, most of what we think is social. Ninety-somthing percent
of what we say in a given day is social. Most of the books on the New York
Times best seller list can't rightly be described as intellectual.
Think of the virus as a borderline between inorganic and organic levels, as
Pirsig says in Lila's Child. Things like comparative relgious studies, the
analysis of mythology and political science is like that. Its barely out of
the realm of the social level. In some cases, what poses as intellectual and
wears an intellectual verneer is actually largely social. Just as there is a
debate as to whether the virus is actually alive or not, it is sometime hard
to tell because we are at the borderline. The intellecual level is still
just getting started. And while there my be certain individuals who we can
clearly recognize as intellecuals, the center of gravity in the world in
still heavily weighted toward the social, especially in these reactionary
times. Even here in this forum, where we are supposed to be engaged in
metaphysical speculations and philosophical debates, much of what we see is,
IMO, very far from intellectual. Some of it is downright irrational and
illogical, which defies the most basic pre-requisites for intellectual
activity. And so the reason that definitions of the intellect seem so
difficult is that the genuine article is so rare and most of what passes for
it just isn't.
As to the question of where mysticism fits into all this, I think Peter was
right on.
As to the question of what I meant by saying, "you can have your eyes back
now", I was making a reference to Shakespeare's "Friends, Romans,
countrymen, lend me your ears". It was a fancy way to say, "please listen".
So I was just saying thanks for reading, for lending me your eyes. See?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:18 BST