From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Oct 30 2005 - 00:17:42 BST
Scott and all MOQers:
>Scott said:
>I am not suggesting that "Pirsig makes intellect out to be anything less
>than the most evolved and open ended level, the most dynamic static
>patterns." I am suggesting that it is silly to call the "Dynamic edge of
>ongoing thought" pre-intellectual, and that it is a mistake to see
>intellect
>as just static patterns, no matter that they are the highest level thereof.
>Intellect is also the means for breaking existing patterns and creating new
>ones. Isn't that what DQ is said to do? So why make it complicated by
>differentiating DQ from dynamic intellect, by saying that there is some
>other force or whatever in addition to intellect that produces new
>intellectual patterns?
dmb says:
Yes, it would be a bit "silly to call the 'Dynamic edge of ongoing thought'
pre-intellectual, but not for the reason you think. Its silly because its
redunant. The notion of "pre-intellectual" experience is already contained
in the meaning of the word "Dynamic". And of course the use of such a label
is very clumsy when it comes to the discussion of creativity and the
evolution of the intelllect. But as my examples (the distinction between the
monkey mind mechanic and the creative channeler, the distinction between
learning the discipline of math of physics and then using that mastery to
creative effect as Einstein and Poincare did) were meant to show difference
between the manipulation of static patterns (intellect) and the creation of
new ones (DQ). And I tried to point out that the static/Dynamic split is not
just pulled out of thin air, but reflects the difference between two kinds
of experience. Nobody is saying that DQ is some "other" force. In common
sense slang, its the difference between plodding along and grooving on it.
Not to mention the point that conceptually and in terms of definitions, this
is the central distinction.
A while back, Scott said:
As always, I do not understand the reluctance to refer to that which lays
down "high level intellectual SQ" as intellect. We think. We are not just
conduits for some divine force.
dmb says:
I get the impression from this comment, and others like it, that you believe
that just about any kind of thinking is dynamic. I get the impression that
you see the difference between static and dynamic as something like the
difference between a catatonic person and a jogger. One is still and one is
in motion. And this idea is extended to the intellect so that working a math
problem or inventing categories like "Dynamic static patterns" is a creative
act. You seem to think the manipulation of abstract symblols, or any motion
or process, is Dynamic. But as I understand it, the thinking process is a
static process just like any other. But genuine creativity? Epiphanies and
conceptual breakthroughs? Genius? Insanity? Now we're talking about the
Dynamic. By definition, this is where we go beyond the rules of symbolic
manipulation or connected previously disconnected categories and such.
Scott:
If quality can be dynamic or static, why not intellect? What is
contradictory about calling "the Dynamic Edge of ongoing thought" dynamic
intellect?
dmb says:
You're being careful with the terms here so that the obvious contradiction
is somewhat obscured, but look at you first sentence when I add the full
terms back where you've shortened them;
"If Quality can be divided into Dynamic Quality and static quality, why not
divide static intellectual quality into Dynamic static intellectual Quality
and static static intellectual quality?"
I realize that you insist on using the term "intellect" in a way that does
not limit it to the static. (Which is a lot like hanging around a physics
department and using the term "mass" in a way that doesn not limit it to
things with wieght or dimension.) What I'm saying is simply that static and
dynamic are contradictory terms and you still seem to be committing a simple
logical error in trying to combine them, like "wet dryness".
Scott said:
I got your point. You seem to be ignoring mine. Would you not say that DQ is
SQ-free, even though there is no DQ without SQ? DQ is SQ-free in the sense
that it is not bound by any particular SQ. Similarly, dynamic intellect is
concept-free in the sense that it is not bound by any particular concept.
dmb says:
Huh? You mean DQ is not sq? To say "DQ is sq-free" is clumsy wierd and
totally obvious. Its like saying dryness is wet-free when its so much
clearer to simply say that "dry" means its "not wet" or "wet" means its "not
dry". And then you shift the meaning to say that DQ "is not bound by any
particular SQ" in order to make another obvious statement, that intellect is
not bound by any particluar concept, by which you no longer mean that
intellect is "not conceptual" but rather that it is open ended with respect
to concepts. As if it COULD be bound by some particular concept. I don't
even know what that's supposed to mean, let alone what it means to deny it.
See, I'm not ingoring your point. I'm trying to show you that you have no
point. I'm trying to show you why I see this as confusing and contradictory
and misleading. I think you could raise your objections, for example,
without re-defining Pirsig's key terms and distinctions in ways that are
approximately opposite. Its self-defeating and just plain rude.
Scott continued.
Remember that this started with your saying that DQ is concept-free. I
assumed this to mean that no concept can capture DQ. And so I pointed out
that likewise, no concept can capture dynamic intellect, and so in the same
sense in which you said that DQ is concept-free, so is dynamic intellect.
(Though I now have to correct what I said by inserting the "dynamic".)
dmb says:
It probably started when I tried to point out the distinction between
Dynamic experience and static intellectual experience and when I tried to
point out that the most basic definition of philosophical mysticism is seen
in the assertion that reality is intellectually unknowable, but can be
apprehended through non-rational means. As I see it, this is just your
latest attempt to defy or deny all of the most basic ideas at play here. It
seems you want to turn everything on its head for no apparent reason. All
this clumsy moves seem to be aimed at disputing assertions Pirsig never
made, such as the polluted and inferior status of static quality. This is
how you can end up saying crazy stuff like dynamic intellect is
concept-free, which comes across as saying something like ideas are
ineffable or concepts are beyond conception. The undivided divider is free
of divisions? That's way too cleaver for me.
DMB had said:
...static and dynamic, as Pirsig uses them, are approximately opposite. They
define each other by being what the other is not. They are the two main
categories, the first distinction which all others follow. I'm not saying
this is sacred ground, just that these are very basic and very central ideas
in the MOQ. And it just seems to me that this distinction shouldn't be
erased or undone for any trival reason.
Scott replied:
I don't want to erase them, and am puzzled by why you would think I would. I
want to apply them to intellect as well as quality.
dmb says:
You're puzzled? You want to apply the static/Dynamic split to static quality
so that at least some static quality can be made "equitable" with Dynamic
Quality - and you're puzzled by the assertion that this erases or undoes the
sq/DQ distinction? Hmmm. I'm tempted to dismiss your puzzlement with the
simple question, "What the hell is wrong with you?!", but I won't do that.
Instead I'll go to the trouble of trying to point to the source of your
confusion. I think some of it has to do with the way Plotinus used
"Intellect" with a capital "I" or the way Anaxagoras was "...the first to
identify the One as NOUS, meaning "mind", as Bodvar recently pointed out.
(ZAMM chapter 29. Page 336 in my Bantam paperback.) I don't recall all the
details, but I do remember reading some Plotinus long ago when you made a
similar assertions and coming to the conclusion that Plotinus was very
obviously NOT disputing that basic definition philosophical or otherwise
suggesting that the manipulation of abstract symbols will lead you to
enlightenment. I do remember thinking that Plotinus was saying the same
thing as every other mystic I'd ever read and it seemed to lend support to
the MOQ whereas you thought it was a challenge to Pirsig's system and used
to to defy the distinction between a mystical reality and that which is
intellectually knowable.
Basically, I think you're still at it.
If I were the suspicious type, I'd guess you have an anti-mystical streak
for theistic reasons but you've been dressing it up as a philosophical
attack. I mean, when I see badly interpreted support material coming from
such a wide variety of places, from ancients, post-moderns, Japanese
philosophers, it makes me think you're just grasping for any weapon. Its
funny that even after all this time, I still have no sense of what you think
or believe about anything, no sense of what you're fighting FOR. You just
seem hell bent on undermining the most basic concepts and terms. It seems
you are trying to confuse matters to the point where fruitful conversation
becomes nearly impossible. It almost seems that spreading confusion and
undermining the conversation is your purpose. Its almost as if you've been
misconSTRUAN things for sport, as a form of intellectual vandalism.
Or maybe I just don't get you.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 Oct 30 2005 - 00:23:34 BST