From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2003 - 00:48:53 GMT
Wim, Steve and y'all:
Wim said:
I'd say it is a difference between roughly 'thinking about thinking' and
'thinking about behavior'. David's intellectual level is therefore smaller
and originates later in time than mine (and -I think- Pirsig's). My
intellectual level is much larger than 'philosophy' and so is Pirsig's, who
equates it (in 'Lila's Child') with 'consciousness' and 'mind'.
DMB says:
Yours is much larger? As it is with most men, I think you exaggerate the
size to flatter yourself. Just kidding. I couldn't resist a little
adolescent humor. But seriously, I never meant to say that the intellectual
level is only as big as philosophy. It only demonstrates the difference
between two kinds of thinking. In fact, I pointed out that the same kind of
distinction applies to science and all the intellectual fields. I think the
idea here is to get a handle on what Pirsig is saying ON THE WHOLE. We ought
not pit one quote against another or pretend that the author's comments in
Lila's Child are at odds with the MOQ. The idea is take take all the
comments and see them in such a way that they all support and help to
explain each other. So when you assert that Pirsig says intellect is equated
with "consciousness" and "mind", I'd simply say, "that's fine but it needs
to be further clarified." I'd say, "yea, but he also says..."
Wim said:
I think David's version of the MoQ still can't solve the mind/body problem,
because it goes directly from biological brains to myth, religion and other
patterns he calls social. My social level is in between David's social level
and the biological level. It can be 'seen in' (or rather modeled after) the
period between the moment when hominids split of from anthropoid apes (1 or
2 million years ago) and the moment when homo sapiens appeared (50.000 -
100.000 years ago). In this period 'man' did pass on so much more patterns
of unthinking behavior between generations (culture)...
DMB says:
Last weekend I spent some time explaining how the biological and social
levels are related to each other, how social patterns emerge out of an
intimate relationship with the desires of the body, so I'll let the
mind/body issue rest for now. Instead, a few words about hominids. Your
picture of the social level raises an interesting question; what sort of
consciousness produced the most basic stone tools. It is interesting that
the same designs for the same tasks persisted for so long. The technology
was exceptionally static. I don't know if "unthinking" is the best word to
describe the apparent lack of creativity or innovation, but I see the point
of it. Interesting. I think the apperance of homo sapiens is pretty much
synonymous with an explosion in creativity and innovation, and not only with
stone tools. Some of those astonishing cave paintings reach way back into
time and show an already highly developed culture of art, ritual and magic.
In any case, I don't really see the need for a missing link. The question is
really just about where we want to put those early hominids. Are they very
advanced animals on the verge of a breakthrough or are they the most primary
and basic social level creatures? Does the social level begin with stone
tool making? Maybe. But, animals like chimps have been observed using sticks
as tools. Recently I heard about some crows that made simple tools out of
wire. No matter where you draw the line between the biological and social
levels, 100,000 years ago or 2 million years ago, the social level is much
older than intellect. It only stands to reason that the intellectual level
would be, er, um,... smalller.
Actually, issues like this are often illuminated by Wilber or Campbell.
Wilber has more levels in his scheme and so the distinction between homnids
and homo sapiens is clear. Campbell too shows distinct layers within
Pirsig's social level. Campbell's ideas are most useful here, I think. He
shows how mythology has shifted with our journey from hunter gatherers, to
farmers and herders, to agricultural empires and city-states. As one might
imagine, the myths and rituals change to accomodate each new enviroment. The
various climates produce different mythologies too, but the shift I'm
talking about is developmental, not enviromental. And it is only in the last
phase, the one we've only just left when the industrial revolution began,
that shaped the myths and rituals that most shape us, that we still live by.
All the previous layers are still hidden within, in a way, but it is the
mythology of the city-state era that gave rise to the worlds great spiritual
traditions, to the languages and social structures we've inherited most
directly. Those cosmology stories that Pirsig mentions in his intellect is
"derived from" rituals passage were created by full blown civilizations like
Babylon and Egypt. They were working metals and watching the stars. The
upper classes were literate, sort of. They were feeding many, many mouths.
This is the kind of fully developed, over-ripe, bursting at the seams and
ready to break out kind of social level values, I think, that need to exist
before another level can be "derived."
On top of all that, Pirsig puts the emergence of the intellectual level, as
such, in the lap of Socrates, just 2,500 years ago. I suppose most serious
people would agree that something important happened at that point and it
seems to me that Pirsig is only trying to say precisely what it is.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 Mar 02 2003 - 00:48:48 GMT