Hey dmb,
Although you've dropped the old "distraction", my core dissagreement with
your idea remains, sorry.
DMB said:
Now on to the actual topic; the distinction between social level thinkingand
intellectual level thinking. Let's start with the first word many of us
learn as children; "no". Even this is an abstraction. A pre-verbal infant
could just scream and cry to express displeasure, but the ability to say
"no" is distinctly different. Its a symbol. Its a phonetic representation of
the little one's will. This is the very beginning of basic language. Its a
symbolic act that is pretty clearly NOT intellectual.
Elliot:
clearly not intellectual? My understanding says that the child expressing a
desire which transcends societal goals is exactly an intellectual decision,
although the most simple one imaginable. it is not intellectual as defined
by websters, but we obviously cant use dictionary definitons when talking
about the MoQ, we must rely on their meaing as expressed in the works of
Pirsig. Wait you say, thats stupid. well, Pirsig defines the inorganic and
biological levels. we know what he means but looking up these words in
websters we find that a charred piece of wood or a diamond falls into
neither of these levels, it is organic (contains carbon) but hardly
biological. The child, thinking and judging Quality for itself, rejecting
the social structure around it for its own desires, has made an early
intellectual decision, i say. this becomes clearer further in this letter
because the core conflict is one idea, not a slew of different ones.
DMB says:
I forget the man's name, but the "reasons" for rejecting what Galileo said
he saw were very sophisticated, were uttered by one of the most educated and
powerful figures of his day, and yet those reasons would seem completely
irrational to a modern mind. Galileo had insisted that he saw moons in orbit
around one of the planets. I think it was Jupiter. In any case, the
authority figure who denounced that observation said that it was impossible
for there to be any more planets than were already known at the time, the
number of which was seven. (Clearly he didn't understand the difference
between moons and planets either.) He "reasoned" that there since we have
seven holes in our heads, there can only be seven planets. At the time it
was believed that "as above, so below", that everything on earth is a
microcosm of what is in heaven. And so, the number of holes in your head HAD
to be the same as the number of planets in the heavens, and the same number
of heavens in the cosmos, etc.
Clearly, anyone who tried to make such an arguement today would be trucked
off to a nuthouse or a home for the feeble minded. And the point is that
Galileo's critic was using words, sentences and was otherwise engaged in
using symbolic abstractions. He could speak and write about as well as
anyone in that time, but it was not intellectual. It was mythic. It was
social level thinking. His "reasons" were confirmed by what all the best
"thinkers" believed at the time. It even has a certain kind of logic to it.
The difference between him and us is that he didn't have access to logic and
rational thinking as we understand it today. He couldn't very well think
about what he was thinking. He just knew that he knew what was true. I'm
sure he wrote a long essay detailing all the reasons why Galileo was wrong
and that such things just couldn't be true. But to those of us who have
access to critical thinking, the case he made would seem totally idiotic and
incomprehensible.
Elliot:
Heres another example of your idea of intellectual. Because our society has
myths that make other socities seem irrational does not makes us "superior"
(as the level system would point to, i guess). Galileo's dissenters were
listening to the myths of their time (christianity) and we listen to ours
(science). Making the assumptions used in galileo's time, reason (yes,
reason and nothing else) would lead to the same conclusions. Making the
assumptions made in our time id say I'm right and pope whatever was a moron.
your critique of the possibily of reason finding a geocentered universe is
hinged upon the fact that we think thats wrong now (and that anyone who says
otherwise would be locked up). the last few lines of your quote seem based
on nothing but the assumption you are right. why couldnt he think about
what he was thinking? thats an assertion. Critical thinking would have
shown christianity to be irrational at the height of chritianity? i say
rather you only think so because we think so now.
Suppose for a second that someone came along and said we were all wrong and
he had a new view of reality that contradicted many of the assumptios of
science. everyone says he's a psycho and an idiot. say he said subjects and
objects were only illusions. and in 1,000 years everyone agrees with him,
our critical theorists (not just the frankfurt school) were all pathetically
trapped in old social ways of thinking and were blinded from realizing the
truth, which is now (in 1,000 years) so painfully obvious and people we
completly unable to think about it for themselves all those years ago. The
funny thing is, if we accept that the quality event brings both subjects and
objects into "exsistance", then the pre-galilain folk were right, there
werent more than seven planets because no one saw their Quality. In any
other time period, past or future, we would be physchos and idiots, speaking
babble or hopelessly outdated ideas, this is a function of society, not of
an intellectual/social level split. it is not our access to critical
thinking, but our access to piles upon piles of ideas that popes 500 years
ago didnt have which makes us different.
DMB:
To begin thinking about thinking we start to ask questions like; How do you
know everthing on earth is a microcosm? Where'd you get that idea? To which
Galileo's critic would probably answer that, "It is written in the Bible" or
otherwise refer to "revealed" truth, to some mythic truth. This is the kind
of thinking that was rejected in the Enlightenment and the questioning of
such assumptions was the beginning of the formation of the scientific
method.
Elliot:
Science and our current logic has all sorts of platipy. How do we know
causation is true? where'd you get that idea? you probably learned it in
school. can you think about the world critically under these blind
assumptions? hell yes we can, doesnt mean were "right". could the thinkers
of long ago think critically inside their assumptions? most likely. I see
your idea that forward thinking is social, and lateral intellectual, and i
agree with it to a point. Social level people act and speak without
thinking or questioning (saying hello is a good example), intellectual level
people think and question. But someone thinking (and yes bible annalysts
really do think), regardless of how hopelessly trapped their thoughts are in
social ideas, is engaging in intellectual level behavior. Having a thought
in your head at all is intellectual (therefore all human beings are
intellectual to a point), acting just because everyone else does so is
social -> the basis of intellect is firmly rooted in the social level, so
intellectual thoughts are by definition limited to the mythos of the society
(please dont pretend your above mythos and the people of the past were not,
your objective and thier hopelessly subjective).
DMB:
Now, its clear that the old myths don't carry the same weight as they once
did and we have a whole new set of rationalized myths. But even with all
that, there are still millions of people who utterly reject the theory of
evolution in favor of a biblical version of creation.
Elliot:
well, anyone who accepts either evolution or creation without thought is
being social. anyone who digs deep into experience and pulls either of
these ideas out is being intellectual.
Here's my idea of the intellect in different terms. The social level arouse
nessicarily after the biological level developed many units who were
interdependant for things like procreation and later protection. Early
social animals like say ants (cause we all accept them as social, hehe) have
only one society, so every ant is the same, exact same mythos (food, queen,
die), no possibility for thought (and theres also biological restrictions on
that). every human being belongs to many societies; family, america,
school, various subcultures, groups or friends, etc. the mythos of these
societies are so numerous and diverse that they get spun into complex
patterns, intellectual patterns. see, each person is unique in their
exsistance in various societies, everyone has slightly different mythos, so
personal history can arise and there is something to think about. there is
no thought on the social level. Democracy is an intellectual pattern,
someone thought it up. Millions of people submitting their will to police
officers and george bush without critically analyzing why (not that they
should, the cops get real upset if you critically question their right to
athority while their trying to give you a ticket), paying taxes and voting
are a social pattern we refer to a democracy, the word or theory is not
everyday experience (notice how theory and practice are never the same at
all, because one is an intellectual pattern and the other social).
Those that think less, or who have lower Quality ideas (like number of head
orifices = number of planets), are not divorced from the intellectual level.
anyone who can manipulate the symbols of our language to develope a
sentance which isnt pure dogma is exibiting intellectual order behavior.
saying hello, using the symbol without thinking at all about why, is social.
restating dogma in your own words, showing understanding which came
through intellectual processes (no matter how low Quality) is intellectual.
I see exactly where your coming from DMB, but i think you group low Quality
intellect with social so the boundry becomes really fuzzy. thinking about
God and his/its glory is social, thinking about Science and its glory is
intellectual? sorry, doesnt fly in my book. I stick by my lost paraphrase
(either from pirsig or elsewhere): the intellect began when the first
biological unit looked at society and said "i am different", thereby
transcending the social level for intellectual Quality, thereby developing
personal history from which critical thought could (and nessicarily must to
some degree) arise.
Im sure i missed alot of the points i wanted to make or comment on, but
thats what exchange is for. Looking forward to your ideas,
Elliot
(And sorry about any superiority that sneaks into my letters, i really dont
mean it, i see and understand your point i think and dont think little of
it)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
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 - 16:02:19 BST