Gary,
I accept that one cannot completely separate one's thinking from one's
emotions, though the word "emotion" may need to be expanded. Love of
wisdom is not the same sort of thing as social love, and the joy of
finding the solution to a tricky problem is not the same as the joy of
getting revenge on an enemy. But anyway,
You mention as examples:
"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."
I assume you mean these as examples of the struggle of the intellect
over the social. This may be, but I do not consider them examples of
static intellectual patterns of value. They are static social patterns
of value. That is, they are trying to establish social conditions for
freedom, etc. The intellectual level, on the other hand, is what one
does within the conditions that allow for them. Intellectual level
patterns are recognized by one's relative detachment from socialization.
So, again, I don't see how your scheme (that all of mind is the fourth
level) makes the difference that makes a difference. After all, if we
were all brainwashed by an Orwellian system, all our thoughts and
emotions would be on the fourth level, by your criteria.
- Scott
Gary wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
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