Re: MD Clearing up this intellectual mess

From: Allen Barrows (allen_barrows@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jun 24 2005 - 22:00:47 BST

  • Next message: Allen Barrows: "Re: MD Clearing up this intellectual mess"

    Allen wrote:
    ___________________

    The beauty a mathematician finds in creative activity is not romantic in the
    SOM sense, it is a beauty of participation and being included in the work.
    Caring. Art. There is no split here between romantic and classic because
    everything works as one flow.
    __________________

    Allen, what you are describing in all your examples when applied to life in
    general as opposed to specific activities is eudaimonia, a 'smooth flow of
    life'. Another word I use is 'engagement', which I think came from the
    phrase 'being in the moment'. My favorite example is the painter who is
    engrossed in the act of painting, not the finished paintings, so much so
    that he really doesn't care if the finished works are burned right in front
    of him. It is the creative flow, not the product of the creation, that is
    valued.

    Allen - Hello Steve, i understand what you are saying and enjoy it allot. I am not a clever
    dick, but i think Plotinus (the philosopher Robert Pirsig suggests
    is close to his own philosophical view) goes a step further, and suggests that the artist
    can create in his head without actually doing anything. Maybe so! I
    find that hard to get to grips with myself, until i think about Zen arts where the finnished
    painting is drawn before the hand moves, or the mathematician who
    does it all in his head. Maths, art - what is the difference? For my part i like to feel the
    material in my hand when i create - and in my case that is the
    frettboard of a guitar. (I am not good!) Having said that! I read about Dave Brubeck who
    told Miriam McPartland that he wrote a tune for her on the flight to
    meet her for a radio interview. 'What does it sound like' she asked. 'I don't know, i have
    not played it yet' he responded. Wrote it in his head on the plane.

    We all experience this, maybe more so as children. As adults I think it
    mostly occurs when we are pursuing a favorite hobby or sport without any
    obligatory constraint by others. If we can grasp this idea it follows that
    we can enjoy whatever we choose, for it is the engagement in the activity,
    not which activity we are engaged in, that results in eudaimonia. The
    pre-Socratic person of excellence was excellent in every aspect of life,
    which is evidence that selecting the correct activity is not the key.

    What I was after when asking you to expand on harmony was why choose this
    particular word as opposed to Quality or nothingness or the Tao, etc.

    Allen - In my last response i did equate harmony with Quality and nothingness (because
    ZMM does) but i chose not to use those terms because what i am really
    driving at as a description of the intellectual level is Coherence. Besides, Quality and
    nothingness are not open to static definitions. I apologise Steve. I
    have made a bit of a cock up here. I should have used the term coherence rather than
    harmony with regard to the intellect, but instead i chose to work up to
    coherence via the term harmony.

    Myguess: Harmony has connotations of parts working together to contribute to
    a healthy wholeness. One label for our perception of this positive
    cooperative, this getting a sense of the 'orchestra', is beauty.
    Analysiscan't do this for it looks at individual pieces and misses the context.
    It is impossible, therefore, for analysis alone to have a grasp of the Whole.
    This has been left to 'spirituality' consequently with the harmonic
    contribution of the parts to the Whole completely missed and claimed not to
    exist by the SOM Church of Reason. So, harmony may be a good term to use,
    but I just need it clarified.

    Allen - I agree Steve, well put. I love the orchestra metaphor. Signs of emergent
    behaviour there! It would appear i am confusing matters rather than clarifying
    them. May have another stab? The context issue you highlight is a good one, and this is
    also highlighted in Anthony McWatts book too because there he analyses
    coherence theories of truth and they appear to demand an infinitely large context. (An
    infinitely large orchestra) I am not talking about that even though i
    agree with Anthonys analysis and your own comments too.

    Poincare argued that a methematician experiences the beauty and elegance of an
    equation and knows it must be correct before it is tested to a satisfactory
    degree of verification. It may not always be correct, but his description is widely held to
    be a good description. Poincare is also talking from an epistemic
    approach. If we take this approach into metaphysics then we simply take the argument a
    step further and say that reality itself is value - value is real.
    Therefore beauty, elegance, value and knowledge must be accomodated by a quality
    centred metaphysical description.

    So when i talk about coherence i do not talk about coherence theories of truth i talk
    about relationships between static patterns of quality (The existing
    orchestra and what it is playing)

    Pirsig does replace his classic / romantic split in ZMM with the static /
    dynamic split in Lila. Although Pirsig does define the romantic aesthetic
    in ZMM as the immediate surface appearance of things I don't think he meant
    superficiality, which he criticizes later on as the tinsel of the appearance
    of quality, like chromed plastic.

    Intellect, or reasoning, appears to have two constituents, much like Pirsig'
    s duality in either ZMM or Lila. Analytic differentiating reason is what
    most of us mean when we use the words rationality / reasoning. The modern
    west has come to accept this as the totality of reason it seems, or mostly
    so, and it's no wonder that SOM is dominate, for that is the world of
    analytic reason (ie, breaking reality into discrete parts).

    Synthetic or inductive reason has to make 'leaps of faith' to reach
    conclusions. IOW, with this type of reasoning we end up with more than we
    start. The only thing that can fill in the gaps is intuition. The premises
    that inductive reasoning starts from are not necessarily parsed SOM
    concepts. Apparently our greatest breakthroughs originate with intuitive
    understandings, and this is the creative aspect of reason.

    Allen - I agree Steve. And this is where coherence comes in because coherence is a
    patterned state open to Dynamic influence and the creative aspect of symbolic
    manipulation. (The orchestra and what is performed by it) The symbols are the static
    repertiore (music on the stand) and coherence is the arrangements of the
    repertiore (How it is played or changed according to new arrangements) Part to whole
    relationship. (Static notation - Dynamic performance)

    One may stuff information into the repertiore for years before a critical structure is
    reached which becomes coherent and transforms the whole repertiore into a
    higher state of organisation. When that happens new things emerge that may never
    have been thought before.

    So, with language pretty much limited to SOM speak, we talk about reason and
    intuition as two separate things. But really both occur together always
    (that's my 'belief' anyway ;)). We must be careful, once again, of
    realizing the limitation of language in describing experience.

    Allen - Well, may i suggest that our cultural environment may insist upon a SOM like
    way of categorising experience, but all the while something very different
    is being experienced in the lives of every day folks. Always was.

    Intuition is the part of intellect that grasps your harmony. It is no
    accident that mathematics derived through intuition models very well
    SOM parsed experience.

    Allen - I agree again Steve. Intuition may be helpfuly thought of as a self organising
    principle within the static repertiore which is beyond analytical
    division.

    If we accept intuition as part of rationality then this frees reason from
    SOM. I am not sure how this fits in with Bo's SOL.

    Allen - I for one accept your suggestion that intuition is an aspect of the intellectual
    process. It always has been, and this may be why Robert Pirsig
    describes assembly as a long lost branch of sculpture? Anyway, non of this fits in with
    Bos SOL as far as i understand, and what is more, i have asked him about
    this for years and years without response. If we begin with SOL premises and follow a
    deductive path we end up with no account of Zen teachings for example.

    Thanks for your response.

    Live well,
    Steve

    PS Incidentally, my sign off, live well, reflects the end for both Quality
    and aretê.

    Allen - I thought so. Like it.
    Please let us not end this conversation here Steve?
    Thank you,
    Allen

    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 : Sun Jun 26 2005 - 10:58:00 BST