From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jul 15 2005 - 09:46:27 BST
Paul and Apostles.
Thanks for the Liverpool Conference report, wish I was there, the
two of us might have had something to talk about.
On 8 July you wrote:
> Paul: Nice editing Bo. The full quote is
> "Just when the evolution of the intellectual level from the social
> level took place in history can only be speculated on. I certainly
> wasn't there when it happened. Julian Jaynes', "The Origin of
> Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind," has impressed me,
> but other speculation seems valid. Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, could
> be the pivotal point. Maybe Solomon. Maybe the early Greek philosophers.
> Who knows? But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one
> studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is
> conspicuously absent. The world is ruled by Gods who follow social and
> biological patterns and nothing else."
> Was Solon a subject-object metaphysician? Solomon?
I had no intention of editing away anything, but does the full
quote add anything to the fact that Pirsig sees the intellectual
level emerging during this 1500 to 1000 years BC time?
Moreover, why write ZMM with its splendid and convincing
description of how the SOM emerged - and not see that this also
fits seamlessly with MOQ's intellect - and then play all
bewildered. It's just infuriating.
But Pirsig seems to be like you, he can't bring himself to admit
anything. When he in the above quote sees the intellectual level
as "conspicuously absent" then he must necessarily know WHAT
is absent and that this is intellectual value. Just as obvious is it
that he means the S/O quality ...but saying so.
> Anyway, this is not really the point.
Oh, it is very much the point.
> You have to prove that SOM is
> the 'mechanism' of intellect and not just the first species of it.
This is most strange. A mechanism that precedes the patterns
themselves? Well, the start of any level is a pattern of the former
"ambiguous" enough for the weak dynamic forces to use, and this
may be your mechanism. The ambiguous SOCIAL pattern may
well be language (manipulating of symbols), but it does not
become intellect for that reason, no more than carbon became
biological even if it is part of all living things.
> You keep assuming that all you have to do is demonstrate that Plato et
> al marked the evolution of the intellectual level from the social level.
> Well, you know what, as far as this discussion goes, job done.
> But this isn't enough. As I've asked you before, why is SOM the
> intellectual equivalent of DNA and not analogous to a virus as I, and
> others, contend?
I don't get your reasoning, if the Mars probe had found a virus
they could have concluded that there were life on Mars. Once
something began to reproduce the biological level was a fact.
The section in LILA about DQ's use of the carbon molecule called
protein surrounding the (carbon) DNA concludes with: "These two
kinds of molecules, working together, are all there is in some
viruses, WHICH ARE THE SIMPLEST FORMS OF LIFE."
------- on the Oriental intellect ----------
> So I think it is clear that there are at least two broadly
> distinguishable species of intellectual patterns -- eastern and
> western.
Two species or a billion species makes no difference to the
biological level and that goes for intellect too.
> > In the past you have tried to ignore the implications of
> > this but have recently announced that Upanishadic thought is "just
> > another form of SOM" but I am willing to take you on with respect to
> > this claim and I don't accept your use of a paragraph from Scott that
> > "confirms a hunch of yours" as an earnest engagement of this crucial
> > issue.
The Easterners began to philosophize which means looking
objectively upon existence something unheard of at the social
level which saw all existence run by gods (as stated by Pirsig)
You and Matt seem happy when you can find a way to sidetrack
the issue and show your great knowledge about some obscure
point. I take Scott's opinion about this - as well as the uncannily
likeness between MOQ's social-intellect transition and Barfield's
"participation loss" - as most relevant.
> > --- In the same letter Pirsig also says:
> > --- > From a philosophic idealist viewpoint there is nothing but
> > intellect. --- > From a Zen viewpoint it is a part of the world of
> > everyday affairs --- that --- > one leaves behind upon becoming
> > enlightened and then rediscovers from --- a --- > Buddha's point of view
> > --- --- This is what I have been saying: To you (Matt and Paul) there is
> > --- nothing but intellect. Everything - including the MOQ itself - are
> > --- intellectual ideas.
> Paul: This implied reductionism (i.e. "nothing but") is off the mark.
> It is the false conclusion you arrive at by starting with your
> "metaphysics = reality" premise which I think sounds pretty much the
> same as an idealist premise i.e. where systems of thought are "reality
> itself."
Maybe you don't follow Matt in his claim that every statement
about things in general must be intellect, but from yours about
"what comes first" you sound even more adamant on that point.
> Anyway, I've tried and failed to progress this conversation before, so,
> if you wish, I'm more than happy to sit back and see if Matt can do a
> better job.
Stop treating me as a difficult child, it's you who, faced with
overwhelming evidence, wants to leave the field.
Bo
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 Jul 16 2005 - 03:15:03 BST