Hi all, Gary here, I want to comment on David's remarks and pull in
Maggie's. So, here goes:
> >Gary said:
> > > Pirsig is wrong.
Since I did such a bad job the last time I posted this [pretty dumb to try
and type a response without wearing one's glasses!] I will repeat myself:
The social, the 3rd level and the 4th level, the intellectual, evolved
simultaneously. Pirsig's implied assertion that the 4th level evolved out
of the 3rd is wrong.
> >
> >DMB says:
> >If he invented the concept, you have no choice but to accept his
> >definition. Otherwise you're claiming to know the contents of his mind
> >better than he does, which is impossible. You can disbelieve it. You can
> >try to understand exactly what it means. You can refuse to buy it. You
can
> >invent a concept of your own. You have lots of options, but you can't
> >change the meaning of a concept he invented.
>
> Elliot:> Heres why i define athority the way i do. You see, Pirsig wasnt
talking
> about just himself, he hoped to make a map that corisponded to ALL of our
> experiences. If a group of us notice there is a more eloquent and
> verifiable (and therefore more truthful) way of drawing the map, then we
are
> supposed to change it. Pirsig left us with the MoQ to let it grow and
> change in our hands, not to think strictly within its bounds. We dont
claim
> to know Pirsigs own head better than himself, we claim to have better
ideas
> about human experience. following your logic, no one can ever be wrong.
> There is a purple girraff reading this behind your shoulder. no, im not
> wrong, you just need to understand what im saying better, not correct what
i
> said.
>
GARY'S RESPONSE: I agree with Elliot. I, and anyone of us, can challenge
Pirsig. But ultimately, we do need to stay within his framework if we want
to continue to be discussing MOQ. I do challenge his assertion that the 4th
level evolved out of the 3rd. I can appeal to authorities on evolution and
history. Pirsig was doing the same when he wrote his books. He did not
write them in a vacuum, he wrote them acknowledging a collection of data
outside of his own work. Which is why he constantly refers to other authors
in his books. I therefore can assert that an examination of material
outside of Lila, would show that the mind, which is what Pirsig says he
means by his 4th level [see footnote 24 in Lila's Child] and the 3rd level,
the human social/cultural level, evolved simultaneously.
> >
> >DMB sums it up:
> >I think part of the confusion about this issue stems from the fact that
the
> >brains we all have today are pretty much the same brains our ancestors
had
> >tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of years ago and they
could
> >certainly "think" in some sense of the word. But to equate this with
modern
> >scientific thinking, rationality and Pirsig's intellecual level misses
the
> >whole point of the MOQ. The social and intellectual levels are not
produced
> >by the brain, they're not features of biological man.
Gary's Response: This is nonsense. To equate Pirsig's 4th level with only
scientific thinking & rationality is just fictitious and false reading of
the material. Pirsig says that the 4th level is the mind! Read that
footnote! Read Pirsig's essay on the website. As for the assertion that
the social 3rd level and the 4th level are not produced by the brain, that
they are not features of the biology of humans, that is real nonsense. No
where does Pirsig make such a statement. The fact is that the mind/
Pirsig's 4th level is a result of the evolution of human biology. To claim
that the mind/Pirsig's 4th level is not result of the 2nd level, in this
case the human body, is to put yourself with Descartes! Pirsig, Wilber and
all of the scientific community would maintain that the body evolved in such
a way as to give rise to a mind. Pirsig and Wilber both see the mind & the
body in a way that has the two compatible and create out of the same stuff=
Quality/Tao/Spirit.
DMB continues: They're [3rd & 4th levels ]each an
> >entirely different level of reality, with an evolutionary path of their
> >own.
> >SOM sees all human thoughts as "intellectual", but that's only in the
> >broadest sense of the word. I've even heard scientists describe the
making
> >of stone tools half a million years ago as intellectual activity. But
> >that's a different sense of the word. Pirsig is talking about something
> >very different from that. I thinks its a terrible mistake to refuse to
> >understand what Pirsig's distinctions mean. If we do that, we only undo
his
> >work, in which case we might as well have never read Lila in the first
> >place.
>
> Elliot:
> As human bodies evolved, the brain must have changed along with it, so i
> dont except my brain is the same as that of someone whose bone structre
and
> other biological aspects were pretty different from mine.
>
> I agree, its a terrible mistake for YOU to misunderstand what Pirsig is
> talking about, or maybe to understand what Pirsig was talking about and
> reject reformulations of it because Pirsig didnt make them. I dont claim
to
> know what Pirsigs head was like (but apparently you do), but i know the
> implications of your ideas, and i see their logical reductions, and i say
> they dont stand up. there isnt anyway to conclude this letter and say
what
> i want so ill wait for you to respond and say it then
>
> elliot.
Gary's response: The fundamental point and need for SOM is that somehow "the
mind" is such a 'magical' thing which is utterly different than anything
that exist in the physical realm that Descartes claimed that it was a
separate thing altogether and thus create 'The Mind / Body Problem'. Pirsig
dissolves the Subject [Mind] Object [Bodies] Metaphysics by saying that
Quality create everything! Quality is the organizing principle for
everything. From Quality you get inorganic matter, then evolution continued
to create organic matter. Human beings are organic matter. We have a mind
the 4th level and we exist in social communities the 3rd level. [I explain
a good deal of the details of all this in my essay, but hey who reads those
long, boring, poorly written things anyway? (Heavy sarcasm here!)]
Using Wilber you can discuss how human beings individually evolve and
culturally evolve. You can say a certain person has more sophisticate
thinking and a certain culture is more developed. These types of
comparisons are part of Wilber's maps. I agree with using this form of
analysis and using Wilber's books ['Up from Eden', 'Atman Project', 'Sex,
Ecology, Spirituality', 'Integral Psychology'].
This is From Maggie: Possible conclusion #2: MoQ posts that talk about
social are talking
>about human social patterns of value. And what makes human social
>patterns of value human is the mediation of intellect and intellectual
>patterns.
>
>We can't observe any pristine social patterns, because "we" are
>contained in intellect. If we observe them, they have been mediated by
>our observation, which changes both the observer and the observed.
>
>However, we can deduce them from the animal world, from history, and
>from observation of our own layers of types of behavior that function in
>more primitive ways, even though these behaviors have since been pulled
>into control by intellectual patterns of value.
>
>cheers,
>Maggie
Gary's Response: Maggie's right! The social 3rd level is all the stuff
that is the products of human beings that are contained in human symbol
systems. We are taught how to interpret those symbol systems. Language and
all the metaphoric responses & meanings to images are taught to us by our
culture. Human culture is the stuff of level 3. All our thinking is going
on in level 2 biology which gives rise to level 4th inside of us. [Read my
essay to understand the details of this!]
Gary Jaron
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