From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 17 2005 - 11:40:02 BST
Hi Bo, Ant and others,
I sent this yesterday, before the other reply, but apparently it got
rejected by the mailing list because Gmail once again managed to throw
in lots of HTML without me asking it to. Anyway, here goes.
Ant said:
Primarily, if you retain SOL, I think you have to explain where the MOQ
(which is an intellectual map of reality)
Bo replied:
MOQ an intellectual map? By this criterion isn't about everything
said and written about the world's workings "intellectual maps"?
The Bible, the Koran, the cavedweller's mythologies (who
definitely were from before intellect). This is sort of a repetition of
the Paul letter where Pirsig went farther down into the biological
level. This is the blind alley that the intelligence-intellect (I call it)
leads to.
MH replies to Bo:
I think the examples you give _must_ fall into the intellectual
category. Where else can they fit? Can they possibly be social, like
language? No. The Bible _uses_ language, but for a higher purpose than
mere communication. It attempts to present a picture of some kind of
truth. The examples you give are of "mythos" - the small shrub from
which grows the enormous tree of "logos", as described by Pirsig in
ZMM. Primitive the mythos may be, but it still is an attempt _by_
society to understand reality. I'm not saying that the Bible and the
Koran had no social component - they clearly did (the Ten Commandments
being a good example), but in as much as they attempt to describe
reality, they are mythos and primitive intellect.
A little further on, Ant said:
Your dictionary might state that "intellect" is
"the power of the mind to reason contrasted with feeling and instincts" but
even from ZMM alone it is clear that Pirsig's quest to expand rationality
Bo interjected:
He did, but he had not acquired the final MOQ, ZMM's
Romantic/Static variety we now see as corresponding to the
social/intellectual levels.
MH replies to Bo:
I think this is too simplistic by far. Classic (I'm fairly sure that's
what you meant to write instead of "Static"?) corresponds to
intellect, sure. But Romantic quality with social quality? Do John and
Sylvia bear much similarity to Rigel and the Victorians described in
Lila? I think not. In ZMM Pirsig says that Romantic quality has to do
with "surface appeal", which I would say has something to do with
Dynamic Quality, or at least with non-intellectual value in general.
The Classic/Romantic split is about intellect vs non-intellect, not
simply intellect vs society. However, if I understand correctly what
Bo is trying to say here, this only strengthens his suggestion that
Classic quality, i.e. the "incomplete" intellect that Pirsig resists
in ZMM, i.e. the "ghost of reason", corresponds to the intellectual
level of the complete MOQ (the MOQ being the much-refined form of the
expanded, value-centred rationality that was originally outlined in
ZMM). BUT! This doesn't quite give the game to the SOL! I'll elaborate
in a moment, but I think it's high time I let Ant finish his sentence!
Ant finished his sentence:
[Pirsig's attempt in ZMM to expand rationality] would tend to disagree
with this [dictionary] definition
Bo replied:
No, it agrees perfectly. Reason was the dilemma Phaedrus'
teacher colleagues confronted him with, and he understood that
this could NOT be "expanded", it had to be made subordinate to
Quality. And he identified intellect as the S/O prism.
MH nit-picks:
Yes, Phaedrus realised that the dialectical subject/object dilemma had
to be made subordinate to Quality. But! He arrived at this conclusion
by "reasonable" means, don't you think? Value-centric reason, as
outlined in ZMM and refined in Lila as the MOQ, can termed an
"expanded" form of reason, because it is capable of everything reason
was previously capable of _and more_. However, I think this is a
semantic issue. We are in agreement here except for the use of the
word "expanded". UNTIL, that is, you claim that following his insight
that subjects and objects are subordinate to Quality, he "identified
intellect as the S/O prism". I doubt that you will find precise
textual support for this, because it is slightly, but significantly,
simplistic. Throughout ZMM, he identified intellect, which you agree
corresponds to the Classic quality of ZMM, as the general chopping-up
of reality into forms and shapes and categories, _of which S/O is just
one of many possible chops_. I don't think you'll find Pirsig saying
in ZMM that intellect _only_ chops reality into subject and object,
because it clearly isn't the case.
In fact, if we agree that Classic quality equals MOQ's intellectual
level, then to understand the intellectual level we need only re-read
ZMM's excellent introduction to the notion of Classic quality, with
its myriad of hierarchies. Importantly, Pirsig points out that many
alternative hierarchies can be constructed to deal with the same
thing. To quote page 79:
"You get the illusion that all those parts are just there and being
named as they exist. But they are named quite differently and
organized quite differently depending on how the knife moves."
(Incidentally, Scott, if you're reading this, would I be right in
guessing that this is what you call "nominalism"?)
It follows that the split into subjects and objects is just one of the
ways in which the intellectual knife can cut. For example, a
metaphysical hierarchy can be formed by dividing reality into dynamic
and static quality, then dividing static quality into inorganic
patterns, biological patterns....... and so on! I will happily say
that intellect can divide Quality into subjects and objects, but I
will not say that intellect _only_ divides Quality into subjects and
objects.
An attempt at reconciliation, though: the four static levels of
evolution were devised by Pirsig in an attempt to divide static
quality in such a way that it encompasses _everything_ (except value
itself), as a more holistic division than "me-in-here" /
"that-out-there". Like any other hierarchy, it's a pragmatic division
chosen for its intellectual value. So, if you can argue that the SOL
definition of the four levels can still "catch" all static patterns,
from the MOQ to Marxism to the various ways of classifying motorcycle
components to anthropology to astrology, then SOL is as "true" as it
could possibly be. However, at this stage I still want to ask you: if
intellectual quality is a subspecies contained by the MOQ, what kind
of a static pattern is the hierarchy that constitutes the MOQ, i.e.
the hierarchy containing dynamic quality and the four levels of static
quality?
Yours exhausted,
Mike
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 : Fri Jun 17 2005 - 12:56:56 BST