From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 08:18:11 GMT
Dear David B.,
Disagree 23 Feb 2003 15:58:51 -0700 with 'religious rituals are the first
intellectual patterns of values' as a possible interpretation of what Pirsig
writes in chapter 30.
This interpretation (on of the extremes I formulated 21 Feb 2003 23:35:08
+0100) is based on interpreting Pirsig's statement:
'If ritual always comes first and intellectual principles always come later,
then ritual cannot always be a
decadent corruption of intellect.'
as implying:
'then ritual can also sometimes be seen as a first product of intellect'.
I agree that there is a difference between "are" and "derived from", but
there is also a difference inside Pirsig's text between 'derived from' and
'not always a decadent corruption of intellect' which can be mended by
interpreting rituals NOT only as social patterns of values but ALSO as
(machine language type) first symbols that stand for experience in the
intellectual level.
I agree that 'Only intellectual truths belong to the intellectual level' is
also a possible interpretation of what Pirsig wrote in chapter 30 of 'Lila'.
Why do you think I make too much of Pirsig's definition of intellectual
patterns of value (= mind = consciousness = symbols created in the brain
that stand for experience) from 'Lila's Child' if he obviously meant that
definition to clear up different possible interpretations of 'Lila'?
You wrote 23 Feb:
'We have very different ideas about the social level. You seem to think its
filled with half-conscious, zombie-like creatures who are nothing like us.'
I agree that the social level as defined by YOU until the until the
intellectual level appears (which is according to me a phase in which part
of the intellectual level as defined by me HAS already appeared) is NOT
filled with such creatures. I indeed hold that BEFORE that and AFTER the
first social patterns of value (in my definition) emerged hominids were like
that.
I don't agree that the fact that Pirsig calls both the third and fourth
levels 'subjective' implies that they both involve thinking. Unthinking
copying of behavior focussed on status/celebrity, i.e. preferential copying
of behavior of those group members with the highest status, those that
appear most to 'belong' to that group, is also subjective, because
perception of 'status/celebrity' and of 'belonging' is subjective. As Platt
pointed out (2 Mar 2003 17:45:29 -0500), 'unthinking' is a term Pirsig also
used in a context of distinguishing the social from the intellectual level
(in chapter 22 of 'Lila').
The computer analogy of the levels, with a 'machine language interface' as a
tiny isthmus of information' between hardware and software, is for me a
very useful analogy. I still don't see why I 'take it way too far' when I
suggest that 'rituals' and 'symbolic language' may be such 'tiny isthmuses
of information' (in this context: of value) between the social and the
intellectual level. It makes clear how the intellectual level can build on
the social level while still being quite discrete.
I'll return later to what you wrote 1 Mar 2003 17:48:53 -0700 about hominids
and the dating of the emergence of the intellectual level.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 08:19:31 GMT