From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Nov 28 2002 - 12:56:30 GMT
Sam,
Right, though again I would phrase it differently, saying something like all
thinking is the manipulation of symbols (actually this probably needs to be
qualified in some ways, but I'm not sure how at the moment), all thinking
involves sq, and all thinking involves DQ.
As I've mentioned before, I see sq and DQ as a case of the logic of
contradictory identity, meaning you can't have one without the other, yet
each denies the other. So to properly deal with this question is going to
require a good deal more thought.
And yes, I don't think Pirsig addresses this, or the broader mystery of
consciousness, in Lila. Can't say I blame him, since it would have detracted
from the main points he was trying to make in that book.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizaphanian" <Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: MD individuality
> Hi Scott,
>
> Fair comments about Phaedrus, I think you're right and I'm wrong on that
> front.
>
> I also think I was too hasty to 'absolutise' the two; they are a spectrum
I
> think. (Although historically they often have been absolutised). I think I
> was wrong to exclude manipulation of symbols from 2nd degree; they are
> included, but I would still maintain that 2nd degree can't be defined as
> 'manipulation of symbols'.
>
> However, having said that, I'm glad that the broad distinction is
acceptable
> to you. I'm dubious about the equation of '2nd degree' with dynamic
> intellect though. (Although I don't at all deny that, like Poincare, it is
> the source of much dynamic thinking). I think there is far too much that
can
> be said about it, and that people can be trained in it, and - crucially
for
> me - it is dependent on character traits for it to be 'dynamic' in a DQ -
> and therefore undefinable - sense. If you just mean that it is where the
> interesting intellectual things come from then that's more plausible.
>
> But I'd be interested in your two pennies on Pirsig's conception. Am I
fair
> in saying he doesn't talk much (in Lila, not ZMM) about 2nd degree? ie his
> understanding of intellect seems shaped primarily around 1st degree
thinking
> to me.
>
> Sam
> www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 4:09 AM
> Subject: Re: MD individuality
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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 : Thu Nov 28 2002 - 12:56:47 GMT