From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 02:23:18 GMT
Pirsig says in Lila's Child:
"For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say the intellectual level is the
same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of symbols, created
in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience."
DMB says:
This is Pirsig's definition of the intellect. Combine this with his
description of Lila as intellectual nowhere and we can see precisely what it
is that Lila does not have.
Platt said:
Lila has no mind? Nonsense. She couldn't talk unless she had
intellect. Seems you think intellect has something to do with how much
education one can claim, a dubious proposition if there ever was one. :-)
DMB says:
Mind includes the social level too. They're both subjective. They're both
mental. So saying Lila is devoid of intellect is not the same as saying she
has no mind. Suggesting that I did, or that anyone would, is pretty
ridiculous. I didn't say anything about education either. You must've pulled
this stuff out of your butt. Where ever you got it, you attributed it to me,
then objected to it and used it to insult me. That's hardly a logical or
gentlemanly way to proceed, Mr,. Holden. You've been saying some sensible
things here lately, but in the last few posts to me you've suddenly turned
into an irrational and abusive jerk. I can't let you get away with that. And
now you've got me talking about whether or not Lila has a mind? Sheesh. For
god's sake, please keep your eye on the ball. If you change the subject one
more time I'll have to assume you're playing at some other game, or that
you're blind.
Lila doesn't need an intellect to talk. She wouldn't be able to talk without
at least some social level values, I'll concede that much. She can talk well
enough to pick up a man or order a drink, but anything much past that is
going to be dabatable. I think its safe to say that intellect, the
"collection and manipulation of symbols", goes beyond the ordinary use of
language and is not something Lila can do. Maybe an analogy would help. If
social level talking is like storytelling, then intellectual level talking
is like symbolic logic. She can spin a yarn, but she can't detect a flaw in
a philosophical argument. But this is yet another distraction from the
issue.
My so-called "dubious proposition", that Lila is dynamic without being
intellectual, is based on Pirsig's own description of her. "Intellectually
she's nowhere". This is clear and unambiguous language. Watching you pretend
that its "relative", that it means something other than what it obviously
and explicitly means,.. well, its like watching a bunch of drunken Baptists
dance. Its weirdly embarrassing, strangely fascinating, you know they
shouldn't be doing it and you know they're gonna regret it in the morning.
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 : Mon Nov 18 2002 - 02:23:25 GMT