ROGER RESENDS THE DEFENSE OF INTELLECT POST.
(SORRY, FOR SOME REASON MY TRANSMITTALS ARE
DELETING THE QUOTES...HOPE IT WORKS NOW)
To Rob and Fintan,
ROB recently wrote:
<<<<
I made a post a month ago and did not get any replies: This is how I interpret
the levels:
1. Life is better than non-life.
2. Groups of life are better than one life.
3. Any reasonable idea (no definition of reasonable) is potentially
better than 1 and 2.
4. Anything "dynamic" could be better than 1, 2 and 3 but "dynamic" is
undefinable.>>>>
ROGER REPLIES:
Actually I did write a response to this, perhaps I failed to send it?
The problem with this argument is that Pirsig did clearly define reasonable.
The answer is in James’ Pragmatism. Truth is that which correlates with
quality within all levels, with other truths and with direct experience. (By
the way, 1,2,and 3 are each true because that which is more free and more
dynamic is defined as "better". And there are no "anythings" outside of 1, 2
and 3. There is only DQ itself.)
ROB:
<<< How does one find truth by going through these types of arguments? I
don't think people go to the MOQ first. The briefly think about what they
"feel" is right and then pick a way for the MOQ to support it.. I think it
would be better to skip the second part. When one becomes more intimate with
the issue, truth will be clearer. Be nonjudgemental. "Where there is love,
there is also clarity".>>>>
ROGER REPLIES:
I agree with some of what you are saying here, but not that the intellectual
distinctions are not valuable. A goal of intellectualizing on these issues
is to learn from them. There are lessons to be learned from Clinton’s
predicament. By considering all angles and levels you can understand why the
problem arose, and make decisions to avoid mistakes in the future. Good
pragmatic judgement allows us to improve the unity of self/universe.
FINTAN :
<<<<Logic can be twisted in
any biased direction you like. however, as you point out, an open mind is
the best tool for assesment. Now the irony is that the flaw in the current
interpetation of the MOQ is that intellect is riddled with pre-judgement.
And yet the intellect is hailed as the highest level of the MOQ. No the
open-pre-intellectual-mind is much more likely to be the pre-eminent level
of the MOQ.>>>>>
Actually I think Pirsig said something real similar when discussing pragmatism
on p419:
"…the test of the true is the good." Then he explains that good is defined as
direct everyday experience.
Twisted biased logic is not pragmatic. Truth that denies direct experience
is not the truth of the MOQ. Whenever members have dogged the intellect, they
build ‘straw men’ of twisted low quality thought patterns like eugenics, and
closed mindedness, and excessive judgementalness and then trash the level. Low
quality intellectual patterns exist. However the intellect that Pirsig places
on top is defined by codes that are the exact opposite of the twisted examples
used to dispute its hierarchy.
FINTAN
<<<
I suppose the only candidate I would have for placing above intellect is a
non-verbal, intuitive, inspiration like the eureka process. This seems to come
out of the pre-intellectual zone.>>>
ROGER:
Again, I see Pirsig as already building this into the intellectual level. The
MOQ per the MAN is a merging of Radical Empiricism with Pragmatism. See page
417
Be Good All
Rog
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST