Hi Gary, DMB and All.
It seems from the last posts from David that we are in agreement about
the Social/Intellectual relationship - and thus about the whole MOQ - it
would have been fun to compare notes more closely, but now it's Gary
who is out to topple OUR applecart :-).
On 1 Jun 2002 at 19:05, Gary Jaron wrote:
> Friends, Romans, country men & women, lend me your eyes!
> David Buchanan said:
> > 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.
A comment to "manipulation of language-derived symbols". My first
reaction after the annotation had been known was that this fitted with
my S/O-definition of intellect: It was the social NON-REFLECIVE (use
of) language lifted to its second power, but Erin pointed to Pirsig having
rebutted my idea and that his new definition couldn't possibly be an
affirmation and I felt I had been caught taking shortcuts. Yet, and yet
again: Such a "second power" of language would necessarily be that of
seeing language as subjective-internal in contrast to the objective-
external world which is an immense value increase - what has
generated civilization so now I am at it again.
An aside: What is "thinking" other than language? In his book "The ....
...Bicameral Mind" Julian Jaynes idea is that prehistoric humans heard
voices that they interpreted as the gods speaking to them, and that the
break of this link between gods and men spelled a new reality - of
alienation. In moqish: the shift from social reality to one where the
voices became thoughts - subjective - in contrast to the objective outer
reality.
> Gary's response: Hmm. I had always thought that the Intelectual
> stable pattern level, the 4th level was internal to a indididual human
> being and his/her experience of life & of understanding life.
Gary, please, we all know that (in a SOM sense) humans are the only
"subjects" (whose reality is ..suspended in language ... as Niels Bohr
said). This internalism is what Phaedrus made the starting point of his
Quality Revolution. How can I make you understand this fundamental
premise? In ZAMM he pointed to the fact that the so-called subject-
object notion carried to it's logic extreme leaves us with mind
(language) only, so in a very, very, very, VERY special sense the MOQ
is a metaphysics of ...mind, of language, of subjectivity of
INTERNALISM. I'm wary to say this because among the uninitiated it is
so easily misunderstood.
Now, with this as a starting point - afterwards - to bring up the "human",
"internal" and other "mindish" notions as something that applies to -
goes outside of the MOQ - is damaging and reminds me of John
Beasley who has harped on the MOQ being a human construct and that
other writers/thinkers had said things better than Pirsig. That would be
true if this initial inside-out-turning of reality isn't heeded.
> It is
> all the stuff and events that were commonly associated with the word
> "mind". Pirsig in Lila's Child footnote 24 says as much.
Yes, he does, but he - the instigator of the Quality Idea - is so deeply
within its premises that he may be oblivious to how easily his
annotations can be used to re-introduce the SOM. If the MOQ is a
rejection of the mind/matter notion how can "mind" return without the
rest of the SOM juggernaut?
> This leaves
> the 3rd level, the Social l stable patterns as interaction &
> communication between two or more human beings. The Social Level is
> all about the products of individual humans acting together, or
> contributing to human culture, or humans simply interacting on a human
> level.
As said (to Sriram) the Social Level is MOQ's "show-case". Matter, life
and intellect can easily be compared to the somish counterparts, but the
communal reality is truly unique, and as David pointed to the: Intellect
is OUT OF SOCIETY - not as you seem to want it to be out of biology
(from another post of yours).
> Gary: Wow hold on. The Intellectual level of Stable Quality came to
> pass the moment the first Biological ancestor of us Homo Sapiens had a brain
> process and experience it.
Gary continued:
> this internal & individual and 3rd was both external and
> collective.
I don't get this.
> We are just stuck with poor choices, in my opinion, by
> Pirsig in calling the 3rd level Social and the 4th level Intelectual.
> They are clumsy words.
Yes, now you sound exactly like John Beasley. If the fundamentals of
the MOQ aren't understood it's all clumsiness and poverty. If it is
however, it's a fantastic achievement and something that never stop
growing on me.
Bo
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