Hi Scott, & all,
What struck me as so vitally important in what you said was this:
Scott: Since Pirsig says that he nowhere in Lila defined the intellectual
> level, how am I expected to give quotes to back up my opinion that the
> intellectual is anything?
Ahh....this is the dilemma. This whole activity is so very Jewish! Very
Rabbinic Judaism. We have a text, the words of Pirsig in ZMM & Lila, they
are our Torah. We have to use a process of analysis to understand those
words, and to interpret those words, and finally to fill in the gaps in the
text: the stuff the text left out. This process is what became Rabbinic
literature. We are all Rabbis trying to build a worldview off of
Torah/Pirsig's texts!!!! We are engaged in writing a Talmud. The Talmud
being the collect material which studied the application and understanding
of the Text.
Each of us, each scholar/Rabbi uses MOQ by first trying to find within
Pirsig words that do present 100% affirmations of one's interpretations or
at the other end 100% denial of one's interpretations. Failing this, which
should be most of the time, we do what the Rabbis have been doing all the
time with Torah, we use the words by a variety of means to create metaphors,
analogies, etc, to point in our direction and thus to fall within the two
extreme positions. Then since we have no 100% yes from the text and no 100%
no from the text we have to allow all ideas to remain. Even if they are
contradictory. And we wait for the coming of the messiah to solve the
issue. Which is in our case, Pirsig giving us a new book or directly
commenting to us.
No wonder I feel so at home here. It is a very Rabbinic process!
The name of the game is finding references in the Canon [ZMM, Lila, and any
other writing of Pirsig] to back up your belief's. Without this textual
reference you are just giving a personal opinion outside of Canonical
Teachings. The Rabbi's did this too. But these had less accepted value
since they had no sanction of the Text to give it authoritative value.
Hey... I could get a job teaching you all how to be and think like Rabbi's!
[That's a joke!]
I digress. Back to the problem before us.
Having stated that we must find references in the Canon to support our
analysis of MOQ. It is too the text we must go. Which is why I pulled out
that note from Lila's Child.
So, using it here is how I would interpret it.
(Here's Pirsig's note again):
> "24. In Lila I never defined the intellectual level of the MOQ, since
> everyone who is up to reading Lila already knows what "intellectual"
> means. For purposes of MOQ precision let's say that the intellectual
> level is the same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of
> symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience."
The first sentence tells us that we should know what Q-Intellectual, the 4th
level, it is something that 'everyone' knows. A reference to common
knowledge of those who have enough experience to read Lila can draw upon.
Not directly useful. But the second sentence is the key. "The intellectual
level is the same as mind." This is a clear direct statement. The third
statement is an elaboration of the previous.
Thus:
1) Q-Intellectual is same as mind.
2) mind is "a collection and manipulation of symbols.
3)these symbols are "created in the brain"
4) these symbols "stand for patterns of experience."
Now, I could 'cheat' and thus be a deceitful Rabbi by only using these
words. But, to be true to the calling I have to go back to the Canon for
more references. Thus...
Lila chap 11, Bantam paperback ed 1991, pg 154: "Mind is contained in static
inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual patterns.
Both mind and matter are completely separate evolutionary levels of static
patterns of value, and as such are capable of each containing the other
without contradiction."
pg. 155: "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They
originate our of society, which originates out of biology, which originates
out of inorganic nature."
pg. 155: "what a mind thinks is as dominated by social patterns as social
patterns are dominated by biological patterns and as biological patterns are
dominated by inorganic patterns."
pg 155: "There is no direct scientific connection between mind and matter.
pg 155: "We are suspended in language."
pg 155: "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally
derived."
So, using these cites we get:
5) Mind (Q-Intellectual level) is contained in static inorganic patterns.
6) Matter (Inorganic level & Organic level) is contained in static
intellectual patterns.
This is verrry interesting! Not sure what to make of it. What is a "static
intellectual patterns"? A product of the Q-Intellectual level. So, what is
the products? A concept? A map? A idea? A belief? A feeling? What?
How is matter contained? Mind is contained in static inorganic patterns in
that all things are built up on the most fundamental level out of the flux
of quantum waves/particles, shifting back and forth between energy states
and matter states. Matter is a concept? This makes some sense. We define
matter by our concepts of it. It this what Pirsig was getting at? Or was
he pointing to some sort of cosmic consciousness, Divine Mind that sustains
all by its acting of thinking? Or....? And the game goes ever on...
Yet,
7) Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature.
8) Mental patterns originate out of society.
Here it is important to realize that Pirsig uses "mental" to stand in the
place of "intellectual". Which reinforces what the note from Lila's Child
pointed at. Mind (common non-MOQ terminology)=Q-Intellectual (MOQ
terminology). Whatever Q-Intellectual is, it includes what is commonly used
by non-MOQ educated people mean by the words "mind" and "mental", "mental
patterns". The Q-Intellectual "originates" out of society and not inorganic
nature. I presume that "society" is standing in the place of Q-Social.
What is this process of "originating"? It is something different than
"being contained by".
9) minds (Q-Intellectual level) thinking is as dominated by social patterns
in a way that is similar to how social patterns are dominated by biological
patterns.
10)No direct scientific connection between mind (Q-Intellectual level) and
matter (Q-inorganic & Q-Organic).
Here we are told that we can appeal to the community of science to help us
to understand MOQ. This community is the educated non-MOQ people referred
to in the Lila's Child note. We are also told that the Q-Intellectual is
not directly connect to either Q-Inorganic or Q-Organic. Which must mean it
is directly connect to Q-Social.
11)We are suspended in language.
What is the "we"? Only Q-Intellectual? Q-Intellectual and Q-social?
12)Our Intellectual descriptions are always culturally derived.
The products of Q-Intellectual level is our maps? our ideas? our beliefs?
All of these?
Is 12 the equivalent of the following= products of Q-Intellectual level is
always derived from Q-social.
Whew. A lot of stuff. But this is the process of doing MOQ. It is taking
the Canon and working with it.
As you can see. The fourth level, Q-Intellectual, appears to be mind and
mental patterns. Those two terms are containers that are greater/larger and
less exclusive than some of the other terms being used:
a)Only reflective thinking
b)not non-reflective thinking = monkey mind
You said:
[Scott]: Instead I base my opinion on what it is by
> identifying that subset of mental activity that, though developed out of
> the social level, is nevertheless in a position to transcend it and, so
> to speak, tame it. I name it reflective thinking, and I think it is
> correctly characterized as SOT, a "standing back" from the patterns of
> experience so that one can collect and manipulate symbols that stand for
> those patterns of experience. Since that seems to be the criterion for
> identifying levels in general, I think I'm on solid MOQ grounds here.
The Q-Intellectual level in some manner comes out of the Q-Social. It tames
it. I believe you could find a cite for this use of "tame". Lila is all
about the ethical application of what will be the guiding principle the
Social or the Intellectual. The Social or the Organic. One of these is
"taming" the other. But what is this taming? Whatever it is, however you
describe it you need to include all of the properties of Q-Intellectual that
I have listed. That is if you want to be true to the Canon. You can't
exclude one citation from the text and only cherry pick what you like. The
whole Canon defines MOQ.
Q-Intellectual level is mental, is mind, is a thing that tames the Social.
Now, I say the feelings and perceptions are part of Q-Intellectual. Here is
how I get there.
1) Q-Intellectual is same as mind.
2) mind is "a collection and manipulation of symbols.
3)these symbols are "created in the brain"
4) these symbols "stand for patterns of experience."
The mind has parallels to the brain. The two are not equivalent but one
eventually grows out of the other. Inorganic to Organic to Social to Mind
aka Q-Intellectual. Each prior level is the origin of the other.
Experiences, the Quality event is conveyed on the quantum level and so on
through the inorganic to the organic. The Social comes in as our collected
patterns of symbols. Thus experience is first sensations, then compared to
our stored patterns of symbols which are feelings, not fully sophisticate
symbols such as words. Then the process continues and through the
manipulation of more and more complex symbols we get words.
The same process is how we build perceptions. Sense data to symbols to
words. All of this is common scientific analysis for how the mind works and
thus how in MOQ terms Q-Intellectual level must be working.
Seems to be perfectly orthodox interpretation of the Canon.
Thus, I would classify any and all manipulation of symbols to understand
experience as Q-Intellectual processing.
Dreams
Emotions
Irrational thoughts
Monkey mind thinking
etc.
All of these are Q-Intellectual. They all do not contradict the 12
categories of Q-Intellectual attributes that the Canon contains.
So, I have done my homework. I have and can elaborate more fully. You and
Bo have to do the same. If you want to call Q-Intellectual level "x". Then
you have to come up with the cites and work the Canon to demonstrate what
you are saying. I did the work, now it is your turn.
One last thing. Some help from the Canon. This is from Lila pg. end of pg.
99 -100, chapter 8.
"Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not
insist on a single exclusive truth...But if Quality or excellence is seen as
the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of
truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth". One seeks
instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the
knowledge that if past is any guide to the future this explanation must be
taken provisionally: as useful until something better comes along."
No one map! Many maps! A map is truthful if it is consistent with the
Canon and it is a high quality explanation of things.
So, now you go back and do your homework. You present a email post like I
have that defends/explains your position. There were some interesting
things in you email which I would like to return to later. This email is
long enough for now. But you had so many thought provoking comments!!
Working towards clarity and high Quality,
Gary
>
Scott: > Now, to decode the second sentence without the third we would have
to
> guess what Pirsig meant in this note by "mind". Looking in the
> dictionary is of course no help, since the various definitions run the
> gamut of subjectivity. But he gives the third sentence. I don't see
> anything in there that looks like feelings and perceptions. But "the
> collection and manipulation of symbols...that stand for patterns of
> experience" sounds like SOT to me.
>
> Further, if Pirsig says that what is traditionally known as "subjective"
> comprises the social and intellectual levels of MOQ, then for you to
> claim that ALL of mind (by which term you include feelings and
> perception) I would ask you to back that up by declaring what is
> subjective (which to my ears sounds identical to the word "mind" the way
> you -- and not Pirsig in the quote above -- are using it) that is not
> intellectual. If there isn't anything, then aren't you the one who is in
> disagreement with Pirsig?
>
> Since Pirsig says that he nowhere in Lila defined the intellectual
> level, how am I expected to give quotes to back up my opinion that the
> intellectual is anything? Instead I base my opinion on what it is by
> identifying that subset of mental activity that, though developed out of
> the social level, is nevertheless in a position to transcend it and, so
> to speak, tame it. I name it reflective thinking, and I think it is
> coreectly characterized as SOT, a "standing back" from the patterns of
> experience so that one can collect and manipulate symbols that stand for
> those patterns of experience. Since that seems to be the criterion for
> identifying levels in general, I think I'm on solid MOQ grounds here.
> Meanwhile, I see your assignation of all "interior" events to the 4th
> level as a complete and utter contradiction of this criterion.
>
> As to dreams and hallucinations, I would classify them based on their
> content. So my dreams are largely involved with social patterns. I don't
> know about yours.
>
> As to feelings and emotions, I'm still grappling with that question, so
> I'll leave that to Bo. Is the "eureka" experience an intellectual
> feeling, or is it better to distinguish it, to reserve the word feeling
> to socially-inspired occasions? I'm not sure.
>
> Monkey-mind (non-reflective mind, in my vocabulary) I see as mostly
> driven by social concerns, but I've gone over this many times already.
>
> You say: "You seem to be implying that only "Conscious thought" is
> Q-Intellect?"
>
> Do you mean "all conscious thought is q-intellect" or "all q-intellect
> is conscious thought". I've denied the former many times (monkey-mind is
> conscious). I would agree with the latter, as long as one is staying
> within our normal experience. I think on a mystical level there is such
> a thing as Intellect of which we are not conscious, but that is not
> germane to the present discussion.
>
> You ask: "Or is it only rational, logical thought is Q-Intellect.
> Where is irrational thought? I already asked this question once before,
> but it was ignored.
>
> Everyone thinks they are being rational while thinking, so I'm not even
> sure one can identify an "irrational thought". So if you say something
> that I find irrational, it may be Q-intellect, just (in my opinion) of
> low quality.
>
>
> Finally, there are several points where I disagree with Pirsig (for
> example is think his phrase "created by the brain" in the above quote is
> unfounded, granting too much to materialist dogma), so I'm not really
> concerned with being reform or orthodox. I do think that Pirsig's
> distinction between the social level and the intellectual level is
> vitally important, but only if one recognizes that the real battlefield
> between them is in each individual's mind. The social/intellectual
> distinction *within one's thinking* is the difference that makes a
> difference. The MOQ emphasizes this. Your internal/external emphasis, on
> the other hand, resurrects the platypi that the MOQ has tried to
eliminate.
>
> - Scott
------- End of forwarded message -------
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:17 BST