From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 19:21:51 GMT
Hi DMB and all,
I am interested in DMB's claim that language is a social level thing. Is
language a requirement for the evolution of society? Did the social level
and the intellectual level evolve simultaneously or was the existence of
social patterns a necessary pre-condition for the evolution of intellectual
patterns (as inorganic patterns are necessary for biological patterns which
are necessary for social patterns)?
To say that language is an intellectual pattern makes more sense to me.
>
> DMB responds to Sam and Wim:
> OK, let me see if I get you. Lila can talk and words are symbols so Lila is
> intellectual. I can see why you might come to this conclusion. But I think
> you're both relying on that one quote far too much. We have to see it in the
> full context of what he's saying and balance it with the many things he
> said. For example, Pirsig also describes both the social and intellectual
> levels as "subjective" or "mental". This means that the "mind" can be both.
> Recall the idea that language is a social level thing and that all our
> intellectual constructs are derived from this older part of the mind. This
> adds up to the conclusion that simple language is not the same as the
> intellect's capacity to engage in "the manipulation of symbols". And I think
> it would be a huge mistake to assume anyone with language skills is
> intellectual. That concept would erase the distinction between the two
> levels AND it would mean that every person on Earth is intellecual, since
> all humans can talk.
Steve says:
I think that every person on earth is intellectual in the moq sense, but
everyone does not qualify as AN intellectual.
I think you are confusing the intellectual level with being "an
intellectual." Obviously, Lila is no intellectual, but that is different
than saying that she lacks the facility to operate on the intellectual
level. Not only can she manipulate symbols well enough to read, I also see
her as one who is capable of arithmetic and perhaps algebra which I doubt
you would put on the social level.
Though her character symbolizes one who is dominated by biological patterns
of value, I think its an odd position to hold that she does not consist also
of intellectual patterns, just as Rigel, though dominated by social
patterns, is also capable of manipulating symbols.
(To me to be AN intellectual is to have interest in the realm of ideas--to
be interested in ideas for their own sake. To be recognized socially as an
intellectual includes being good at manipulating symbols.)
Also, being able to successfully operate on one level does not preclude
being able to operate on another level. Pirsig is both a celebrity and an
intellectual. As for the three bests (the good, the true, and the
beautiful) what's best is to exemplify all of them.
DMB says:
>Consider also the description Pirsig gave us
> about his characters. He says flat out that intellectually she's nowhere.
Steve:
I don't know how you can take the line "intellectually she's nowhere" as far
as you do. It cannot be taken literally because the moq is not a place. It
is obvious hyperbole in Pirsig's "far out" and "groovy" vernacular.
You say that Wim and Sam are relying on a particular quote too much, while
you keep returning to this single line to make your case.
I'm still hoping that this is just confusion between the intellectual level
and being "an intellectual."
Steve
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 : Sun Nov 24 2002 - 19:12:09 GMT