From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 20:52:07 BST
Hi Platt,
If I could interject...
Reason says that for ideas to be shared or transferred, brains are required.
>To put it another way, brains are "essential" to creation, sharing and
>transferring of ideas. Don't you agree that ideas have an inorganic and
>biological level foundation as well as a social one?
My opinion is that, yes, there is something about the evolution of man's
brain (the hard-wiredness of it) that has given it the ability to support
complex symbol manipulations. I say "complex" because some evidence exists
that other primates are able to use simplistic symbol manipulations. What
the primates lack is the ability to "ratchet up" these symbol uses through
a social semiotic. That is, symbol use is not preserved in a culture long
enough for it to be modified and negotiated.
>Can ideas exist
>without being created, shared or transferred by human beings who are a
>combination of all value levels?
No, so long as the emphasis is on the plural "human beings".
>To say that intellectual patterns
>originate out of social patterns is merely to acknowledge that social
>patterns are necessary for man's existence. It was man's symbol-making
>ability (intellect) that created his social patterns in the first place.
>In that sense the two levels of inseparable. Which level dominates is a
>separate question.
I don't see anything I disagree with in this, Platt. A good thing, no?
> > Is "reason" an individual pattern?
>
>Formal reasoning is an intellectual pattern created by an individual named
>Aristotle.
Hmm... I think its a bit simplistic to attribute this to one individual
like this. Maybe it's just a nuance, but I see all the people Aristotle had
the benefit (or misfortune) or learning from/with/through, his students,
his colleagues, the collected wisdom of the culture, the values of the
culture, all contributing to this "creation". Thus, I'd say that "formal
reasoning is an intellectual pattern that emerged through Aristotle from
his historical-socio-cultural system".
I would also say that Pirsig did not "create the MOQ", but rather that the
MOQ emerged through Pirsig from his historical-socio-cultural system. This
may sound heretical, but I think is much more accurate.
>You're indulging in reductio ad absurdum. After Aristotle, others found
>his logical reasoning to be of high quality, and one by one, it spread
>throughout the Western world as the guide to quality thought. But as
>Pirsig said about cultural change, someone, an individual, had to be
>first, and Aristotle gets the credit, just as an individual by the name of
>Pirsig gets the credit for inventing the MOQ.
Gets the credit, sure. But only because in our social system we value
giving "credit" to "individuals". To borrow a metaphor from biology, seeing
Pirsig as the "keystone species" in the ecological emergence of "the MOQ",
but also valuing the numerous other "species" (from Richard to the "Are you
teaching Quality" secretary, to the numerous books Pirsig had the benefit
of reading, to the dialogues Pirsig had with students, colleagues, friends,
familiy, to the influence of Chris, to name some) shows more how the MOQ
did not emerge simply "out of Pirsig's brain", but out of the complex
interplay between "Pirsig" and "Pirsig's socio-cultural system".
>What's got me thinking there's a problem with part of the MOQ is Pirsig's
>appeal on the one hand to logical consistency and on the other hand
>denying the concept of self while at the same time accepting the concept
>of "I" throughout his writings.
>
>It looks to me that neither Pirsig nor we can escape from I, me, my, you,
>and yours -- referring to individuals -- any more than we can escape from
>making value judgments.
We can't, I think, because our language does provide an alternative. It
structures our thinking into "subject" "object", that is how deep the
fault-lines go. Indeed, as soon as one uses words (the Buddhist would
likely argue) one sets up a false distinction between "in here" and "out
there".
>Finally, it appears the word "collectivist" sets off alarm bells among
>some participants. Why that's so among fans of the MOQ puzzles me because
>the MOQ places intellect and its necessary condition, freedom of speech,
>at a higher moral level than social values. I must be missing some
>"nuance." :-)
"Intellect" emerges out of the interplay between biological individuals
using social semiotic systems. To say the intellectual level is either
individual or social is mistaken.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Sep 01 2004 - 02:45:45 BST