From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 12:21:26 BST
Hi Scott,
You asked: "what is there in the individual that is not dependent on the
intellect that is an evolutionary advance over the social?"
May I first say that this is the very best sort of response? (Thank you)
You're not simply saying "You're WRONG, you MORON!" - you're inviting me to
realise that I'm a moron for myself :-) In other words, you're focussing in
on a specific element of my proposal with a query that, if I can't answer
it, shows my assertion to be without value. It could be that my
understanding of the intellect is too narrow; if so, that will emerge from
my answer. It might also be that we completely agree on what the fourth
level consists in, in which case my argument was that 'individual' is a more
comprehensive and more accurate description of that level than
'intellectual' - but to justify that, I'd better get on with answering your
question.
To begin with - as it is the choice of Pirsig to describe the fourth level
as 'intellectual' which is at issue - I would like to consider what the
common understanding of 'intellectual' is. My dictionary says (amongst other
things) that intellect is 'the capacity for understanding, thinking and
reasoning, as distinct from feeling or wishing', and intellectual means: 'of
or relating to the intellect, as opposed to the emotions.expressing or
enjoying mental activity'. An intellectual is a person who has been highly
educated; who functions in the life of the mind. Perhaps we could take
Einstein or Richard Feynman as a paradigmatic figure.
I think that it would be commonly accepted that being 'intellectual' centres
upon an ability to employ reason and logic: an intellectual is a prominent
member of the 'Church of Reason'. Much of what Pirsig has to say supports
this, especially when he is describing the twentieth century as the
revolution towards intellectual dominance, and science as the exemplary
intellectual pattern. It would seem reasonable for the common understanding
of 'intellectual' to reflect the dominant patterns of scientific and
post-enlightenment thinking, that have had such a profound influence on our
societies in the last two hundred years.
Lastly, if Bo is right with his SOLAQI thesis, then the intellect IS
subject-object logic, and the metaphysical and scientific systems that flow
from it. Pirsig seems to offer support to this when he talks of 'the day
Socrates died to establish the independence of intellectual patterns from
their social origins'.
To my way of thinking, talk of 'intellectual' is inevitably talk of SOM
thinking - because that is what the intellectual level has been. It IS the
western tradition that we have been discussing in other threads. Pirsig
writes: "it should be stated at this point that the MoQ *supports* this
dominance of intellect over society.. Having said this, the MoQ goes on to
say that science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take
over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science
has no provision for morals." This is the 'static' intellect that the
hippies rebelled against. It is 'square' thinking _par excellence_.
Now clearly, Pirsig doesn't think that his fourth level is necessarily
subject to the same criticisms that SOM thinking is subject to; indeed the
MoQ is presented as the intellectual pattern which can replace convential
SOM science. In large part I agree with that. What I think is a mistake is
to call it the 'intellectual' level, because to do so perpetuates a mistake
in SOM thinking (which is how 'intellectual' will be understood) - the
mistake that the intellect, that which is exalted in the Church of Reason,
is a sufficient guide to life and/or DQ.
It seems to me that just as the cell is the unit at the biological level,
and the social roles represent the unit at the social level (eg father,
husband, son, farmer, politician, scientist), the unit of the fourth level
is not a disembodied rational intellect, but an autonomous - ie socially
detached - individual. And that autonomy is not dependent primarily upon
reason, but upon emotional maturity. MacIntyre, in After Virtue, describes
the transition (from human being as social unit, to human being as
individual) as being the change from the story of the tribe or nation, to
being the story of the individual. What is crucially at issue is a
transition from being a vehicle or unit of that social order - and therefore
whose decisions are wholly determined by that order - to being an autonomous
unit of decision making, "For freedom of choice of values would from the
standpoint of a tradition ultimately rooted in heroic socieies appear more
like the freedom of ghosts - of those whose human substance approached
vanishing point - than that of men". In contrast, in the new Aristotelean
synthesis, the virtues have the central role, and the key virtue is
_phronesis_ , or judgement. And it is judgement which opens up the
possibility for DQ development, 'judgement has an indispensable role in the
life of the virtuous man which it does not and could not have in, for
example, the life of the merely law-abiding or rule-abiding man.' It is this
ability to discriminate as an individual, and not just as a social unit,
which I see as the essence of the fourth level. I have argued elsewhere (eg
in my post from last year on Damasio) that our reasoning capacity is
dependent upon our emotions, and, clearly, emotional development is
dependent upon the development of the virtues (eg forebearance, capacity for
hard work, delayed gratification etc). So to my way of thinking a
functioning intellect is dependent on emotional maturity, not the other way
around. And it is through the growth of our emotional maturity that we get
access to DQ, not through (mainstream) intellectual development.
Now, to return to your question (at last.). It seems to me that anything
which is the product of individual judgement is an evolutionary advance on
the social level, and intellectual endeavour is one derivative facet of that
individual judgement - it is that individual judgement employed in the areas
of science (empirical investigation) and logic (including mathematics).
Areas which are not delimited by that description - art, architecture, the
writing of novels, companionship in marriage, geographical exploration,
political philosophy, particular types of religious teaching, even, dare I
say it, something like Lila, which emphasises the biographical elements -
all of these are, I would say, elements of the fourth level that are
captured in talk of 'individual' that are missed with talk of
'intellectual'; moreover, intellectual creativity in, say, mathematics, is
included in a discussion of the 'individual'.
Obviously it is possible to define 'intellectual' as including all these
wonderful things, but to my way of thinking the title is misleading - just
because of our heritage of SOM thinking that we are trying to get away from.
So my short answer to your question is: judgement (emotional maturity,
wisdom). Judgement is an evolutionary advance over the social level that is
a constituent part of the individual but which is not dependent on the
intellect - indeed, intellectual DQ is dependent upon it!
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:00 GMT