Gary and all:
DMB says:
Thanks for trying to be more careful and polite. My main objection is to the
tendency to turn qualified statements into absolute statements by adding
superlatives. When we replace phrase like "most likely" into words like
"only" or "exclusively" or "absolutely", we've dramatically changed the
statement. This is unfair and dishonest. Its far to easy to shoot down
superlatives. One exception is all it takes to prove it wrong. But on to the
actual issues..
Gary said:
But, here's a question: What about our human ancestor's who took a stone
and used it as a tool and even manipulate the shape of that stone to make it
in to a better tool, should this be called a type of 4th level MOQ thinking?
It lacks formal sophistication of Einstein's theories of General Relativity,
but in it's essence are they both (the stone shaping and the formulating of
General Relativity) thinking and thus 4th level activities?
DMB says:
Yes, they both involve "thinking". But the whole point is that its very
important to make distinctions between different KINDS of thinking. This is
the only way to tell the difference between the 3rd and 4th levels. They
both involve "thinking", but there are very important differences. Without
the ability to discern between the two levels, the moral codes are useless
and then so is the MOQ. The inability or unwillingness to make this
distinction wrecks the whole system. Everybody already knows that rocks are
distinctly different than organisms. The distinction between social level
thinking and intellectual level thinking is every bit as dramatic and
profound. Its no small thing.
Gary said:
My whole spin out in my prior posts was that I did believe the two were 4th
level activities and I thought you didn't. I honestly can't tell if you
agree or disagree. I can read your posts as saying stone shaping is less
sophisticated thinking and scientific theorizing more sophisticated, sort
like charting different historical developments in the 3rd level MOQ.
Then I re-read your post and it seems you are saying that the two types of
thinking are not 4th level activities. That only one of them can be called
"intellectual". When you say only one could be intellectual are you using
the word "intellectual" to mean something like rational scientific formal
philosophizing thinking?
DMB says:
I've been focusing on mythic world views because that is a clear example of
3rd level thinking, but social level thinking is much more than that. I've
focused on the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment period for the
same reason; it is a clear example of 4th level thinking. The battle between
religion (mythic world views) and science (rational thinking) tells the
story in a relatively clear and simple way. Socrates questioned the
existence of the gods, Galileo challenged the Church, the Enlightenment led
to the "Death of God" and World War I put an end to the divine right of
Kings. Each of these events represent the increasing power of the 4th level
over the third. See? Yes, we could say the intellectual level is more
sophisticated and all that, but its not a matter of degree, but one of KIND.
A tree is NOT a sophisticated rock. Its not JUST a more complex form of
reality. Its at a completely different level. Big difference. A molecule is
more complex than an atom, but they're both at the first level. In the same
way, intellectual thinking is at a completely different level than social
level thinking. I think Wilber is quite right to make even finer
distinctions. There are lot of different kinds of thinking within each of
Pirsig's levels, but I digess...
Gary said:
Or are you using the word "intellectual" as I believe Pirsig does to mean
3rd level activities?
DMB says:
Ooops. Now I'll go out on a limb and use a superlative. I'm absolutely
certain that Pirsig uses the word "intellectual" to describe the FOURTH
level and NOT the third.
Gary said:
I think the two definitions are not the same. Pirsig's usage is very broad
and encompassing, it includes the other definition but adds a lot more kinds
of activities. For an example, 3rd level activities can be either Classic
or Romantic. What we are doing in writing these emails is very Classic.
When I listen to music I am having a Romantic experience. For me the two
are both 3rd level activities.
DMB says:
I'd urge you to abandon the terms "classic" and "romantic" because, in
formulating the MOQ Pirsig himself has abandon them. He hardly mentions them
in Lila, except to explain why he's let them go. It only muddies the water.
Its possible that writing these messages you are operating at the third
level, but that would depend on your own cognitive development. But that's
not something you'd want to admit in public. You certainly don't have to
take my word for any of this. Chapter 22 is loaded with examples that will
help to see the difference between the 3rd and 4th levels. It names people
and things that almost everybody already knows about. Chapters 17 and 20 are
full of examples and explanations about this issue too. It wouldn't take
long. I imagine you could read all three over lunch. You could find
interesting thoughts throughout the book, but those chapters are rich with
specific examples of the battle between the 3rd and 4th level.
Thanks,
DMB
P.S. I've changed the thread name to better reflect the content.
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