RE: MD Making sense of it (levels)

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2003 - 20:38:34 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?"

    Platt said:
    I've been thinking about DMB's definition of the intellectual level as
    "thinking about thinking" In doing so, I suddenly wondered what level I
    was on. After all, to think about "thinking about thinking," don't I have to

    be at a higher level in order to encompass "thinking about thinking" into
    my thoughts?

    DMB says:
    No. Thinking about thinking is how the Oxford Companion to Philosophy
    defines philosophy. I'm only saying this illustrates the difference between
    social and intellectual values, not defines intellectual values. This notion
    that this then leads to "thinking about thinking about thinking" is silly.
    Its just a matter of carefully examining our assumption, of systematically
    and critically thinking about our unargued beliefs.

    Platt said:
    But wait. In writing this I see I'm thinking and questioning "my thinking
    about thinking about thinking." Where does this stop? How many
    thinking levels must I postulate to end this thinking about thinking about
    thinking, etc.? Or do I just chase myself in circles at one level? Logically
    DMB's definition of the intellectual level quickly ascends (or descends if
    you prefer) to infinite regress.

    DMB says:
    When I was a boy we had a dog named Suzi who would chase her own tail. Round
    and round and round. That was the dumbest dog I ever knew. But seriously, I
    don't see the logical necessity of this infinite regression. I don't even
    see the implication. It seems you've just invented this non-sense to avoid
    the issue. You've thrown a bucket of water on the point and then declared
    that its no good because its all wet. Perhaps you're quite serious and
    sincere, but it looks like a silly word game to me.

    Platt said:
    Besides, Wim is correct in pointing out that Pirsig equates the
    intellectual level with "consciousness" and 'mind,' a much broader and
    inclusive level than DMB allows, one that encompasses all thought
    patterns whatever the content thereof, including thinking about thinking.

    DMB says:
    No. I think Pirsig equates intellect with A CERTAIN KIND of consciousness, a
    certain kind of mind. This is the main idea here; that social level thinking
    is really thinking, but that intellect represents thinking of a different
    kind. All thought is intellectual? So you've said before and I think I know
    why conservatives like yourself consistently wish to erase the distinction
    between social and intellectual values, between social and intellectual
    level thinking. It hurts the cause. In any case, let me ask you then to
    explain the distinction. More specifically, how do you explain the
    following....

    Pirsig:
    "The mythos is the social culture and the rhetoric which the culture must
    invent before philosophy becomes possible. Most of this old religious talk
    is nonsense, of course, but nonsense or not, it is the PARENT of our modern
    scientific talk. This 'mythos over logos' thesis agreed with the MOQ's
    assertion that intellectual static patterns of quality are built up out of
    social static patterns of quality" (Lila chapter 30)

    Pirsig:
    "One can imagine primitive song-rituals and dance-rituals associated with
    certain cosmology stories, myths, which generated the first primitive
    religions. From these the first intellectual truths could have derived."
    (end of chapter 30)

    DMB says:
    To say all thought is intellectual, is to say "religious
    nonsense","cosmology stories, myths and the first primitive religions" all
    belong to the intellectual level. You'd have to conclude that there is no
    distinction between the child and the parent, that they are the same thing.
    You'd have to conclude that intellect was derived from intellect. You'd have
    to conclude that the invention of philosophy was no big deal, marked no
    important shift and was only an extension of the same old thing. To construe
    all thoughts as intellectual, you'd have to trash the structure of the MOQ.

    Thanks.
    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 - 20:38:43 GMT