Hi David & all.
>
> 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. 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. 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. 4th is internal & individual and 3rd was
both
> external and collective. 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.
>
> DMB says:
> I see what you mean, but think its only a little true. The 4th levels
SEEMS
> more individualistic in some respects, but I think that is only because as
> we go up the hierarchy of being static patterns become increasingly
> differentiated. But to construe collectivity vs. individuality as the main
> distinction between the social and intellectual causes problems. The
> scientific method, for example, requires a community, peer review and
such.
Gary's Response: "The scientific method, for example, requires a community,
peer review and such." I agree. Everything listed in that sentence is at
the Social/community level. I find the simplest way to distinguish between
the two levels is individual and communal. This seems to be what Pirsig is
getting at when he choose the word 'Social' . The dictionary definition of
Social is something like= living in communities. From all that I read in
Lila and in Lila's Child, which I am only just beginning on a first read, it
seems that Pirsig always means human community when he refers to 'Social'.
Social and Intellectual , Human communal and Human Individual are always
together and in a dialogue. This is my phrase: "People shape, and are
shaped by, ideas." Society teaches the values of the Culture and the
individual incorporates them and eventually shapes them for him/her self.
Then these new thoughts of the individual are communicated and if accepted
they become part of the Social/Culture which the next generation is taught
with. In an essay which Horse has yet to post on the web site I go into
this in some more depth.
If you use this system: INTELECTUAL = INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT PROCESSES &
SOCIAL = COMMUNIAL ACTIVITIES OF HUMANS , then everything seems to fall
into place.
Pirsig is very adamant that both Intellectual and Social are the realms of
Humans and not animals. I have a tendency to want to make those terms
servable on a wider scale and use them as ways to refer to any Internal
process of all things as Level 4 and any interaction process on any things
as Social. But that hypothesis is for my 4th essay.
My challenge and a way to test my current hypothesis: try to find an
instance where you can't apply me definition of Intellectual and Social to
the Pirsig's presentation in Lila. If you succeed than you will have
demonstrated my error. If you can't then my hypothesis moves to a theory,
or a working definition.
Waiting for the Social Level to resolve this one,
Gary
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