Gary,
Sorry, but I've done all the "what did Pirsig *really* mean"
argumentation over this issue that I'm going to. Since he isn't
infallible, your comparison to Talmudic disputation is rather grotesque,
in my opinion. (And, of course, the Devil can quote Scripture).
What is important to me is the following, from my last post:
"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."
You may want to rephrase this -- that's not important. What is important
(IMO) is not only the general struggle between the social and the
intellectual that Pirsig describes (eg to free science from religious
restraints) but in individual development. By calling the 4th level
*all* of mind (in your sense of the word), this distinction seems to me
to be lost, so I would be interested in hearing how you see this
distinction being made.
- Scott
Gary Jaron wrote:
> 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
>
------- 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 - 16:06:18 BST