From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jun 04 2005 - 18:54:44 BST
Hi Paul, Bo, Wim:
Paul, thanks for the correction. Only the words in red ink are Pirsig's. I
quoted from a copy I had made that failed to distinguish between black and
red. I appreciate your picking up on that. Bo -- please take note.
> You misquote Pirsig in your post. It actually reads:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Copleston: For that which appears, appears to a subject, within the ambit,
> so to speak, of consciousness. We cannot go behind consciousness...
>
> Pirsig: If by consciousness he means intellectual consciousness the answer
> is, "Yes, we can. Value goes behind consciousness. It exists where there is
> no intellectual consciousness."
>
> Copleston: ...and analysis of it shows that it essentially involves the
> subject-object relationship. In primitive consciousness subject and object
> are virtually or confusedly present...
>
> Pirsig: In the pre-intellectual consciousness of an infant value is present
> and there are no subjects and objects.
>
> Copleston: ...and they are progressively distinguished in the development
> of consciousness until there arises an explicit awareness of a world of
> objects on the one hand and of a self or subject on the other, this
> awareness of the self being developed especially by the experience of
> effort. As, therefore, the subject is present from the start as one of the
> essential poles even in primitive consciousness...
>
> Pirsig: No it isn't.
About "primitives" it seems Pirsig has infants (babies) in mind while
Copleston is talking about early man, i.e., they're talking past each
other. If Copleston is talking about early man, then Pirsig appears to
agree because in Lila he pointed out that intellect emerged early on as a
necessary catalyst for social survival:
"Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that
intellect has functions that predate science and philosophy. The
intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an ultimate
meaning of the universe. That Is a relatively recent fad. Its historical
purpose has been to help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat
enemies." (Lila, 24)
This also appears to refute Bo's claim that "the social level has no S/O
thinking." There also the problem raised by Wim about where to put
aesthetic/spiritual values if the intellectual level is restricted solely
to S/O.
My own view is that the levels are not isolated from one another or
restricted to just one value but represent instead a dominance of one set
of values over another. As Pirsig said in analyzing today's conflicts, the
social and intellectual levels are still fighting it out for dominance.
Best,
Platt
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 : Sat Jun 04 2005 - 19:13:47 BST