From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 22:53:23 GMT
Howdy partners:
Steve said:
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 says:
Yes, the social level is a necessary pre-condition for the evolution of the
intellectual level. Intellect couldn't exist without it. We can't rightly
say that language is intellectual because it contradicts the historical
order of things. Remember all that talk about the Sophists? They were
rhetoriticians, great talkers, masters of the language and they PRE-DATE the
birth of the intellectual level, which Pirsig locates in ancient Greece with
Socrates. There are lots and lots of reasons to put language at the social
level, but this one is such a major theme in Pirsig's work that we hardly
need anything else. But then there's the inescapable logic of it, which I
already mentioned. Lila talks, but intellectually she's nowhere. Logically
this means that the ability to use language in not dependent on intellect.
> Previously, DMB responded 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.
DMB says:
That's very generous, but quite incorrect. If everyperson on earth is
intellectual, how do you explain Hitler, Jerry Falwell, neo-Nazi skin heads,
porn stars and all the illiterate masses? No, I'm sorry. Such a view is
quite preposterous. The great conflicts of the 20th century would never have
occured if there weren't millions of reactionary social level people.
Steve said:
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.
DMB says:
Language and math can be so confusing. Perhaps the trick is to be more
specific. Maybe we should ask what Lila is capable of talking about. The
philosophy of science? Bio-medical ethics? Lingusistic analysis? I don't
think so. You see, mathematics has certainly evolved to the intellecual
level, but it has not always been so. It goes way back to simple counting
and its no accident that we have a ten-based number system. Its based in our
biological roots as we have ten fingers. Its not an accident that the
degrees in a circle approximately match the number of days in a year. Its
based on the earth's orbit and spin. In the days before Socrates, just
before the intellecual level was born, there was Pythogoras, many of whose
mathematical insights are still valid, but at the time it was deeply infused
with mysticism. It was a kind of number mysticism and was much more like
religion than today's math. Likewise, even the stupid and corrupt astrology
we see today requires rather sophisticated caluculations, but is otherwise
irrational and completely unscientific. In other words, its mathematical,
but very far from intellectual. The amazing monumental architecture of Egypt
required some astonishing calculations and measurements, and yet the whole
purpose of the pyramids was religious and political.
Steve said:
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:
Does not preclude? Hmmm. It works in the individual just as it works in the
world collectively. One has to achive competence at one level before growing
into the next so that there can NOT be an intellectual without social values
first. Its a necessary precondition both historically and personally. So
there is no problem with the idea that Pirsig is both a celebrity and an
intellectual. Of course, he's famous for BEING an INTELLECTUAL, but that's
beside the point.
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.
DMB says:
Huh? Based on this, I have to assume that you don't know what "literally"
means. The problem with literalism arises when one confuses a metaphorical
statement with a statement of actual fact. But in this case Pirsig is not
speaking in metaphorical language. It is a straitfoward statement and is
supposed to be taken literally. For example, if I say "the MOQ sheds light
on what it really means to be an intellectual", a reasonable person will not
take this literally and will know that what I mean is that the MOQ helps us
understand it. But a literalist might conclude that Pirsig's MOQ produces
photons, which would be really dumb. Toward the end of the book Pirsig
points out that the Preist doesn't see the wafer as a symbol of Christ's
body, but as an actual piece of the flesh of Christ. Likewise, Lila doesn't
see her doll as a symbol she takes it literally. The only difference between
this two kinds of delusional literalistic views, says Pirsig, is that Lila
is alone in her fantasy, while the Priest has plenty of company and social
sanctions to boot. The reason I keep bringing this same quote from the book
is precisely because its so straitforward. I honestly don't see how it can
mean more than one thing.
Steve hopes:
I'm still hoping that this is just confusion between the intellectual level
and being "an intellectual."
DMB says:
I'm not confused. The intellecutal level of evolution is much, much larger
than any particular intellectual person. But I fail to see how we can talk
about one without the other. Its just a matter of scale. I mean, where would
science be without scientists? Where would philosophy be without
philosphers? How could we have an intellectual level if not for the work of
intellectuals. Its like saying there's a difference between art and artists.
Well, yea. Sure. But what's the problem? If we're going to discuss the
nature of creativity it only makes sense to talk about the creators AND
their creations. So it is with the intellect. We can talk about those values
and the people who exhibit those values without contradiction or confusion.
Thanks,
DMB
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
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 - 22:53:32 GMT