From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 21:55:14 BST
Ian,
Ian said:
Belatedly, I've given Sam's paper a pretty thorough read.
I agree with his concerns and analysis of the "Intellectual" level.
My conclusions about what we should do about it MoQ-wise are not quite the
same.
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1052
We need a good definition of MoQ-Intellect.
(Better than Pirsig's so far.)
But let's not throw baby out with the bathwater.
Scott:
First some minor points, objections to your objections. Sam said that
natural selection appears in the biological level, but you prefer seeing it
as applicable to all levels. Certainly, selection operates at the social and
intellectual levels, but to call it "natural" depends on one's viewpoint on
how to use the word, so that's a separate issue. But in any case, I know of
no evidence that selection occurs on the physical level (though I am aware
that there is speculation that universes might so engage, this is pure
speculation). Now in fact I do think physical appearances change, but that
is coming from a different perspective entirely (the Barfieldian), but
sticking to the conventional view, there is no competition between differing
physical systems, since there is only the one.
Second minor point: Pirsig (in LC) explicitly says that, for convenience, to
restrict the social level to humanity.
Now on to intellect.
Both you and Sam, and numerous other posters, are bothered with the
"coldness" of intellect, when it is seen as being epitomized by science.
What I would like to offer in this regard is a distinction made (by Aquinas,
Cusa, and Coleridge, and others) between two types of "fourth-level
activity" (to be neutral for the moment). This was (to use Cusa's
formulation) a distinction between "intellect" and "discursive reason"
(Coleridge's was between "reason" and "understanding" respectively -- hence
the potential for confusion.) In MOQ terms, the second could be understand
as manipulating within an existing set of SQ (or web of beliefs), while the
former is jumping out of the system, expanding or reshaping the web, etc.
So here is my candidate for a definition of intellect: the creation,
manipulation, and evaluation of symbolic static patterns of value. (Note:
whether one accepts my view that intellect is universal, or the MOQ's that
it is just the fourth level, is gotten around by the word "symbolic", so
this definition is neutral in that regard. It becomes my view only if one
claims, as I do, that all SPOV are symbolic.) So manipulation corresponds to
the lower type of intellect ("understanding" in Coleridge's sense, or
working within a given system), while evaluation is being "meta-" about a
given system, and creation is reweaving, or creating a new system, which is
done by creating new symbols (usually through changing the meaning of
existing symbols). Creating new symbols is the artistic aspect of intellect.
Of course, my definition supports my view that intellect cannot be
understood as strictly SQ, so it is loaded in that sense. So I'll leave it
as a challenge: can one give full support to a definition of the fourth
level that leaves out the creative and evaluative aspects of intellect?
- Scott
- 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 : Sun Aug 14 2005 - 11:51:34 BST