From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2003 - 22:45:29 GMT
> 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.
If you want to believe that thinking about philosophy doesn't require a
higher level of thinking than philosophy, be my guest. That's like
believing that thinking about common sense doesn't require a higher
level of thinking than common sense.
> 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.
Well, I don't see your point about the intellectual level being a "thinking
about thinking." It looks like a silly word game to me. Sorry about your
dumb dog.
> 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.
Pirsig contradicts you, saying:
"For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say the intellectual level is the
same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of symbols, created
in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience." (Note 25, Lila's Child)
> 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:
"A society based on scientific truth had to be superior to a society
based on blind UNTHINKING social tradition." (22) (Emphasis added.)
> 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)
Pirsig:
"Intellect is simply thinking." (Note 95, Lila's Child.)
> 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.
Nonsense. All talk and all thought ABOUT myths, ABOUT the
distinction between child and parent, ABOUT intellect being derived from
intellect and ABOUT the invention of philosophy occurs at the
intellectual level. You can't get outside thinking (intellect) to think or talk
about anything meaningful. You can get outside thinking by going up a
level to the level of art "Where things that are intellectually meaningless
nevertheless have value." (SODV Paper) That's really where DQ and the
action is.
Anyway, if the intellectual level is, as you say, the level of thinking
about thinking, then your previous arguments (supported by Pirsig) that
socialism is intellectual-grade stuff goes down the tube. If there's one
thing socialism isn't, it isn't thinking about thinking. It's thinking about
how to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Platt
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 - 22:46:21 GMT