From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jul 17 2005 - 12:19:11 BST
Bo,
>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?
Paul: Your whole argument rest on the intellectual level emerging with
subject-object metaphysics, right? If Solon, as Pirsig speculates, was the
pivotal point, then I ask: was Solon a subject-object metaphysician?
But again, this is beside the point until you can prove that the first
pattern of a level defines the level.
As I've said before, with no reply, I think generalised propositional truths
are the "organising principle" of intellect and skilled abstract symbol
manipulation (allowing ever more general constructions) is its mechanism.
Now, the idea that a single truth is there to be discovered (or recollected)
by man is the basic idea that was born in Greece. But a brief review of
global cultural history supports my argument that truth has been rendered in
different patterns by different cultures and different schools of thought
and so intellect - defined as the manipulation of abstract symbols into
generalised truths - evidently contains this appearance/reality conception
of truth *alongside others*.
I'm interested in how the SOL would interpret this paragraph -
"Truth's a metaphysical subject that everyone disagrees about. There are
lots of different definitions of truth and some of them could throw a whole
lot more light on what [insanity was] than a subject-object metaphysics
does. If objects are the ultimate reality then there's only one true
intellectual construction of things: that which corresponds to the objective
world. But if truth is defined as a high quality set of intellectual value
patterns, then insanity can be defined as just a low-quality set of
intellectual value patterns, and you get a whole different picture of it."
[LILA, p.407]
For example, this statement - "If objects are the ultimate reality then
there's only one true intellectual construction of things: that which
corresponds to the objective world." - *is* the SOM correspondence theory of
truth. Why then, if intellect = SOM, does Pirsig find it necessary to say
the next sentence? - "But if truth is defined as a high quality set of
intellectual value patterns..." Because, according to the SOL, "a high
quality set of intellectual value patterns" would translate into "a high
quality of correspondence to the objective world" (i.e. a high quality SOM
pattern) which is precisely what he is supposed to be offering an
alternative to in this sentence.
>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.
Paul: Yes. So what's your point?
>Just as obvious is it
>that he means the S/O quality ...but saying so.
Paul: Repeating your conclusion as "obvious" is no argument, Bo.
>> 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?
Paul: I am saying, to use the analogy again, that we need to distinguish
between DNA and viruses. Historical biological accuracy notwithstanding,
the virus was the first pattern that contained DNA but it does not follow
that all patterns containing DNA are therefore viruses.
By the same reasoning, (even if it is so) that SOM was the first pattern of
intellect, it does not follow that all patterns of intellect are therefore
SOM.
>> 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.
Paul: But your reasoning about intellect, applied to this scenario, says
that if the Mars probe had found DNA they would have concluded that only
viruses exist on Mars.
>> 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.
Paul: Yes but what is the common denominator of all species? That is the
point in question here.
>>> > 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)
Paul: I think your statement - "philosophy = looking objectively upon
existence" - is begging the crucial question. This is why we don't proceed
anywhere.
>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.
Paul: If we are talking about intellectual patterns, why is my reference to
eastern intellectual patterns "some obscure point?" You can't decide the
scope of relevance to this discussion as arbitrarily as that, Bo.
>> 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.
Paul: Where is this overwhelming evidence that SOM=intellect and is not
just the start of intellect?
If I'm "leaving the field" at all it is because on this "field" we are
playing different games and I'm tired of kicking the ball into the net
without seeing the scoreboard change. It can't be much fun for the
"spectators" either, if there are any left.
If I'm treating you as difficult it is because you have failed to answer (or
support your answers to) any of the crucial questions and statements (and in
Matt's case, whole posts) about your thesis, the most recent - about "what
is the MOQ?" - being:
To think that Pirsig is saying that the MOQ is more than what are the most
valuable general beliefs to have is to think that he is saying, like 'the
Chairman', that they are "The Truth," the Reality behind the Appearances (of
e.g. SOM). This demonstrates that one is still in thrall to the
appearance/reality distinction - the common denominator to all SOM patterns
- which, ironically, by your own definition, means that your argument is
more entrenched in intellect than any.
Regards
Paul
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 Jul 17 2005 - 17:44:52 BST