From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Wed Nov 27 2002 - 04:09:15 GMT
Sam,
I'm pretty much in agreement with you on distinguishing these two types of
thinking, but think that the way to distinguish them is to call them static
intellect and Dynamic intellect -- or static reason and Dynamic reason
(Coleridge called the former 'understanding' and the latter 'reason', by the
way). The Poincare story (getting a brilliant solution to a long-pondered
mathematical problem while thinking about something else -- retold in ZAMM)
is a classic case of Dynamic reason. It wouldn't have happened without the
long-pondering, and the instant recognition of it as the solution is a case
of Dynamic Quality breaking into a heretofore static state. When the static
state is mathematical or scientific or philosophical we can call it reason,
when artistic, art.
Yet one can also call it the "manipulation of symbols". After all, doesn't
the MoQ amount to moving certain symbols around, namely the words 'subject',
'object', 'value', 'quality', etc.? That is, the manipulation of symbols can
be very humdrum but can also be very creative. One can say, by comparison,
that Michelangelo manipulated paint very creatively.
(By the way, I am in disagreement with Pirsig about sticking to dictionary
definitions. One can't do that and philosophize, since the words of interest
do not have clear denotations. Short of neologizing, the only way to be
creative in philosophy is to shift connotations, e.g., of the words
'subject' and 'object').
In your bit about Phaedrus' coldness, I think you have confused two things.
Phaedrus is cold socially, but only with people (Lila and Rigel) who do not
share his excitement over things intellectual. I would guess he was quite
warm with Dusenberry. So when you say "The whole structure of Lila is built
around the idea that the intellect is 'cold' in this way, that Phaedrus is
emotionally distant, that he _doesn't_ display any emotional wisdom." I
think you are confusing social emotion (where he is 'emotionally distant'
with not-particularly-intellectual folks) with intellectual emotion. True,
there is not much discussion of the latter in Lila, but then it was
discussed in ZAMM, and in fact, getting too emotional over his discoveries
turned out to be disastrous for Phaedrus. That was part of the story in ZAMM
(the madness), but it is not so much in Lila. In Lila he is going back over
his ideas, and any narration of intellectual ideas is bound to be
undramatic, since by then they are (to the author) static. The reader might
get emotional intellectual highs, however.
- Scott
----- Original Message ----- >
> It might help if we put to one side questions of what 'reason' actually is
> for a second, ie, not get into a tussle over definitional questions. It is
> quite possible that I am incorrectly equating 'reason' with 'logic', but
> hopefully if I explain myself a bit further things will be clearer - and
> then you can say whether you agree with me or not.
>
> Let's just talk about 'thinking' for the moment, and not try to define it
> further. (After all, according to Pirsig, 'intellect is simply thinking').
>
...
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 : Wed Nov 27 2002 - 04:11:07 GMT