Gary,
I see what you are saying, but my response is the same: to me this way
of dividing things up has no metaphysical value, for reasons stated before:
a) its primary division of things is into mind and non-mind, and that
resuscitates many of the platypi that the MOQ has tried to deliver us from.
b) it does not emphasize the all important difference *within* each
individual, namely his or her intellectual development which, at this
stage of our culture, lies in SOT: to consider events as dispassionately
as one can, to question social presuppositions, and so forth. To this
generally accepted (by SOM-ites) emphasis, the MOQ (and "good"
post-modernists) adds the questioning of the presuppositions of SOM, in
particular such SOM distinctions as mind/matter.
So: we disagree, and I see no common ground on which we can pursue the
argument. After all, we both looked at a mere three sentences of
something Pirsig wrote and interpreted it in opposite ways.
Some platypi:
Gary Jaron wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> I believe that the 4th level is the place where the
> individual mind of an individual human exists in
> Pirsig's organizational scheme.
So my experiencing my carrying out biological functions is the 4th
level. My experiencing weightlessness should I go into freefall is the
4th level. My raw experience of the pain from sitting on a hot stove is
4th level.
You counter this (I believe) by saying that, no, the fact that bodies in
freefall are weightless is the inorganic level, while our experience is
4th level, but to that I say: how do you know that there is an inorganic
level independent of my experiencing it (in other words, by making the
internal/external divide fundamental, you have an epistomological
problem that the MOQ -- in my interpretation -- doesn't).
> The 3rd level is the repository of collective activity
> of groups of individuals. It is what is accepted as
> culture for each society. No emotional responses
> existed at the 3rd level, only individuals have
> emotions. though you can metaphorically say a group
> as in a "mob" is acting with one motivation,
> rage or anger or lust, etc. This would be only
> metaphorical language.
What language isn't metaphorical? How do you distinguish between the
literal and metaphorical (a distinction that only came to be known
through SOT, by the way -- see Barfield). How do you know that only
individuals have emotions? What about the Giant? or is that "just" a
metaphor? What do you think of Sheldrake's contention that morphic
resonances may be non-individual (or at least non-human) factors in our
experience? Must this sort of possibility be rejected because it can't
fit into your scheme (it doesn't seem to be either internal of external).
Only a individual person has a
> emotion. There is no group mind. No group thought.
> there are accepted cultural ideas, beliefs, laws,
> norms, etc. These can be recorded and these records
> are part of the external evidence of a culture and
> hence a 3rd level.
> The ideas of "liberty", etc are 3rd level
> social norms. But as a concept or a belief in a human
> they are socialized into a individual and thus become
> an idea held in a human individual mind which means a
> 4th level.
How does the norm get from outside to inside? (Again, the mind/matter
platypus).
>
> The difference between 3rd and 4th is the difference
> between individual mind and collective culture. 4th
> level is always internal mental processes. As I think
> of what to write on this email, the thinking is 4th
> level, the act of "publishing", the typing and
> the sent email is a external 3rd level act and thing.
>
>
> 4th level only exist as mental internal stuff of a
> singular person. 3rd level can exist as internalized
> mental stuff within a single person or as external
> products of one or more humans.
Doesn't this vitiate your thesis? If the "3rd level can exist as
internalized mental stuff" doesn't that make it 4th level(by your
scheme). If it is an external product, then what is it, animal,
vegetable, or mineral? Or is it morphic resonances? Or a metaphor?
>
> When a single human has a new idea or new point of
> view that first exists at the 4th level. When it is
> expressed in print or by speaking it is a public event
> and thus has entered the 3rd level social.
Which cannot have either a material or mental existence as far as I can
see. Can't you see what a platypus you are creating?
The
> listeners/readers on their 4th level think about the
> new ideas. Then they take actions. Those actions are
> 3rd level events. whether a society will or will not
> change is a 3rd level challenge that goes on first in
> the minds of individuals [thus 4th level].
Doesn't it have to "goes on *only* in the minds of individuals", not
"goes on *first""? Where does it go on second? (And it appears you
reject the Barfield/Jaynes thesis that this is only true in this stage
of our culture's development (earlier, ideas -- and hence change -- came
from gods).
What those
> appointed upholders of the society (teachers,
> ministers, elective officials, whatever) decide to do,
> the actions they take, once those acts are
> communicated it becomes a 3rd level event.
If you tell me "You're under arrest", there is your (4th level)
experience of deciding I need arresting and saying the words, and there
is my (4th level) experience of hearing the words and deciding whether
to resist or go quietly. In both your and my 4th levels there is the
knowledge of the legal system. Where does the 3rd level reside?
>
>
> The difference to be redundant is that 4th level exist
> only within the mind of a single person.
>
> 3rd level is the socialized ideas &
> linguistic/symbol systems of a culture and thus
> existing within a human mind and it is also all inter
> activities amongst humans. It is everything we would
> call culture.
>
> My scheme [& I believe Pirsig's scheme] follows
> the process of events, always asking where do they
> take place. Hence the use of terms such as internal
> activities and external activities.
> 4th level is mind. All the other levels are
> theoretically public events, process, things,etc.
> Stuff that can be examined by the senses or augmented
> senses.
The third level is not examinable by the senses. How can I taste, see,
hear, smell, or touch the act of being arrested?
> Only the 4th level mind can not be seen by the senses.
> You have to inquire to find out what is going on
> inside a mind.
Actually, Barfield points out somewhere (in another book) that in fact
it is our sense experiences that are private, while what we think is
what can be made public (because we can say it). Also, nothing of the
3rd level can be perceived by the senses, which is why, I presume,
Pirsig considered both the 3rd and 4th levels to comprise "the
subjective". How do you reconcile your scheme with that?
- Scott
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