From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Jun 07 2005 - 12:29:16 BST
Hi Platt
In a posting frenzy I will comment your citing Pirsig:
Pirsig:
> "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)
Platt:
> 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.
I know that there are Pirsig statements that goes against the SOL
and the above is one. But it also shows how - when he treats
"intellect" - it becomes something else than the the intellectual
level, something resembling "intelligence". And this is the very
heart of the matters. First INTELLECT (by "Oxford Advanced"):
"Power of mind to reason contrasted with feeling and instinct."
something that honed down to essentials means the ability to
distinguish between what's objective and whats subjective, in
other word in agreement with the SOL.
INTELLIGENCE however:
"The power of perceiving, learning, understanding and knowing ;
mental ability."
Discarding the ambiguous "perceiving" (animals perceive their
environment), "understanding" and "knowing" (a crow that visits
my feeding tray hauls a dangling ball up with its beak, then steps
on the string while shifting its grip. It surely understands and
knows what to do). What's left is the ability to learn from
experience and this something that originates in biology (ref the
smart crow).
The intellectual level is as above the S/O ability, and what's
more: It's "out of society" and in conflict with it. Remember the
tenet of each level "going off at a purpose of its own"? Can this of
"finding food" and "detecting danger" have developed into
something threatening to social value? Even the manipulation of
symbols definition fails to meet this requirement. Only
distinguishing between what's objective and what's subjective
(and transforming social values into its subjective half)
> 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.
I agree most profoundly. Also with Pirsig's analysis of
contemporary conflicts, but this is the SOL-defined intellect in
conflict with social patterns, not "intelligence", the Sep 11 pilots
were surely intelligent enough.
Bo
PS
"Social level has no S/O thinking" is short for no subject/object
value, but does not mean that there is no subject self - as
different from objective environment - at the social level, if that is
still an issue Ref. Scott.
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 : Tue Jun 07 2005 - 13:24:46 BST