Hi Scott,
I've been busy with family things this week (My brother's son is having his
Bar Mitzvah) and so I've not had the time to respond.
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott R <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
> 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).
GARY'S RESPONSE: Not sure what you mean by "your comparison to Talmudic
disputation is rather grotesque...." Why? What and by whom have you been
taught about the Talmud? Were those people perhaps bias against Judaism?
One of the best books to understand the process and history of the Hebrew
Bible, the New Testament, and The Talmud, is a book by the non-Jewish
Scholar Donald Harman Akenson, a distinguished and awarded professor of
history at Queen's University of Canada. He wrote "Surpassing Wonder: The
Invention of the Bible and the Talmud." He called the Talmud as "comprising
one of the great monuments of Western Civilization."
Common Sense, which I find is never very common, should upon a brief moment
of reflective thought
told you that your remark to a Jew about his praising the preeminent
achievement of his people as "grotesque" would be considered at the very
least as ill-mannered, rude, ignorant or offensive. Unless you need to, you
should not cavalierly insult someone's beliefs. It has no purpose or
benefit,
but could plant the seed in a listener less sensitive than I to dismiss your
thoughts and beliefs with the same lack of thought and consideration.
If you actually did know something about the Talmud and the process of the
Talmud you would have recognized in what I wrote that I was using an
appropriate metaphor to describe the process everyone on this list is using
to understand Pirsig's texts.
You Wrote: "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, "
GARY'S RESPONSE: Of course Pirsig is not infallible, but this site was
created to first and foremost discuss his insights as presented in the
primary text: Lila and then make use of his other texts as a why to
illuminate the core ideas found in Lila. This I was doing. Generally when
I make a point and need to refer to it again I use a computer's ability to
cut and paste and thus re-use previously written material. You were not so
inclined. If you will not do this may I suggest you point me to date and
time in the archives where I can find your counter views on the subject?
Failure to do either, I will take it as leaving my brief analysis of
Pirsig's writings in my prior post as accurate.
And, if any one is 'listening' in on this 'conversation' and disagree with
the following:
Q-Intellectual level [Pirsig's 4th level] = mind
They should start to join in on this discussion. Not with simply giving
forth their opinions but to quote/cite chapter and verse from Pirsig. My
previous email, which Scott replied to and I am replying to him, lays out my
presentation of chapter & verse to prove my above statement. This is not my
opinion, it is what is clearly orthodox Pirsig.
Which to me makes sense.
Pirsig has clearly and accurately stated that the 4th level is the level of
the mind and mental activities, and not the sole province of reflective
rational thinking alone.
Scott: > 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 (e.g. 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.
GARY'S RESPONSE: You have rightly focused on what is important. The
"general struggle between the social [3rd level] and the intellectual [4th
level]" is where the action is. My presentation to clarify what is the 4th
level only aids in this understanding. "This distinction seems to me to be
lost.." is perhaps your not recognizing the importance of emotion in
determining and formulating rational / reflective thinking. By separating
the intellect / the rational processes from the emotional processes you have
split that which is not split in actual practice within a human being.
What is going on in a human mind is always the multiple activities of
reflective thought, 'monkey mind' thought and emotional feelings.
The idea that a 'rational intellect' operates untouched by emotions is a
fantasy. An it doesn't really show up in fantasy/sci fi. Both Sherlock
Holmes and Mr. Spock [& the whole of the Vulcan Race] are all guided not by
their rational intellects but by their emotions. They are passionate about
what they believe! Sherlock Holmes is passionate about Justice & fairness
and a zealous in his need to have stimulating challenges, to be the best
problem solver. This is a emotional drive. Vulcans have a irrational &
rational but still passionate despise and fear of emotions!
The engine of our body is our rational intellect but the fuel to our body is
our emotions.
People are willing to die for ideas such as 'freedom', 'liberty', 'free
enterprise', not because of their dictionary rational definition. It is the
emotional value that fills them with passion. Our values came to us by
socialization, the incorporation of ideas from people who were care givers,
our parents, teachers, etc. These people gave us love and attention and we
felt emotionally connect to them. The ideas they taught us were thus coated
with the same emotional context. That is why we feel what we do.
There is no such thing as a thought without an emotional context. it does
not occur. By talking about some 'pure rational intellect devoid of
emotions' you are talking about a fictious thing that does not ever occur in
a real human life.
By accepting that the 4th level is the level of
rational thought
irrational thought
emotions
feelings
delusions
dreams
etc.
You are reorganizing the reality of a complete human being. All of those
things are one in a human mind.
Korzybski in 1933 coined the term 'semantic reaction' to reference this
connection with intellect and emotions.
"The Working tool of psychophysiology is found in the semantic reaction.
This can be described as the psycho-logical reaction of a given individual
to words and language and other symbols and events in connection with their
meanings, and the psycho-logical reactions, which become meanings and
relational configurations the moment the given individual begins to analyze
them or somebody else does that for him. It is of great importance to
realize that the term 'semantic'.involves conjointly the 'emotional' as well
as the 'intellectual' factors. Any fundamentally new system involves new
s.r.; and this is the main
difficulty which besets us when we try to master a new system. We must
re-educate, or change, our older s.r.
All scientific discoveries involve s.r., and so, once formulated, and the
new reactions acquired, the discoveries become 'common sense' and we often
wonder why these discoveries were so slow in coming in spite of their
'obviousness'. .This is why the 'discovery of the obvious' is often
difficult; it involves very many semantic factors of new evaluation and
meanings." [From Alfred Korzybski, SCIENCE AND SANITY: an Introduction to
Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, 1933, 1941, 1948, 1958, The
International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company, pg. 24, 27, &
29.]
Trying to bring clarity,
Gary
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 - 16:06:19 BST