From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 09:53:16 BST
Anthony and Company.
30 Sep. you wrote:
> Yes, I must have forgotten that Pirsig has rejected the "thinking"
> intellect. If you can point out where he stated this (in context),
> this would be much appreciated.
> > If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures
> > just because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about
> > chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms? Don't they make
> > conscious decisions? How about bacteria responding to light and
> > darkness? How about chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our
> > intellectual level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its
> > meaning.
Isn't this a rejection of a thought-defined intellect? But Pirsig is a
master of ambiguities: Instead of saying that thinking is NOT the
criterion, he merely points to the problem of using it. He of course
knew the SOL at the time of writing this and saw the danger of
having to agree with it .. horrors of the horrors ;-)
> I can than see how this fits in with
> the remainder of your September 26th post.
> The Missing RMP Annotations [for "Lila's Child", June 2002].
> RMP Annotation 86
> Since in the MOQ all divisions of Quality are static, it follows that
> high and low are subdivisions of static quality. “Static” and
> “Dynamic” are also subdivisions of static quality, since the MOQ is
> itself a static intellectual pattern of Quality….
2002 must have been an Annus Horriblis for Pirsig as some of
the annotations in LC are truly horrible. To me this seems to say
that DQ/SQ is a division of a still deeper QUALITY from which a
new MOQ appears: QUALITY//DQ/SQ, but as this is also a
subdivision there must be a still deeper Q U A L I T Y ad
infinitum.
> RMP Annotation 129
> Many forms of intellect do not have a subject-object construction.
> These include logic itself, mathematics, computer programming
> languages, and, I believe some primitive languages (although I can’t
> remember what they are)…
Logic itself? Isn't that the "thinking" he says will lead to
absurdities if used as intellect's criterion? Mathematics is merely
calculation using symbols in the same way as language is symbol
manipulation- People of old (social level) both spoke and
calculated without realizing the intellectual distinction between
the symbol and what it symbolizes [the X it symbolizes might be
abstract (intellectually seen). That does not matter]
> If [a] gorilla can read and write and add and subtract then it is
> acting intellectually.
Yes, I believe experiments show that (upper biology-level)
animals can add and subtract, as well as communicate by sign
language, without being of the intellectual level, because this
requires a SOCIAL level capable of supporting it. Can't you see
that this intelligence-as-intellect totally thwarts the MOQ idea that
intellect is something out of SOCIETY, not out of the brain? (not
shouting just imitating rich language ;).
Bo
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 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 09:58:06 BST