From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 17:54:35 GMT
DMB,
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).
Scott says:
Your examples are just what I mean by the phrase "dynamic intellect". Is
that so hard to understand? I am saying: let's call the routine manipulation
of static patterns static intellect, and call the exceptional, creative
moments dynamic intellect.
DMB continued:
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.
Scott:
Right. Plodding along is static intellect and grooving on it is dynamic
intellect. I accept the dynamic/static distinction. I just do not consider
intellect to be wholly static.
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.
Scott:
All false. See above.
DMB continued:
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.
Scott:
Also false. My use of the word "dynamic" in "dynamic intellect" is to be
understand exactly the same way as in "dynamic quality". It refers to the
creative. And, of course, I have never invented a category like "dynamic
static patterns", since I deny that all intellect consists of static
patterns. One can only come up with a phrase like "dynamic static patterns"
by forcing what I said through your presuppositions, which I do not share.
DMB continued:
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:
Right, that is how you understand "the thinking process". I am arguing that
thinking is not just a static process. It is also the name to be used for
conceptual breakthroughs. Now we indeed are talking about the Dynamic.
Dynamic intellect, as opposed to static intellect.
Scott said:
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?"
Scott:
This is truly amazing. The "obvious contradiction" is only a contradiction
IF one assumes that intellect is purely static. I do not. So, since I do not
assume that intellect is static, your substitution is just silly. Unless...
DMB continued:
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:
It is only "a lot like hanging around a physics department..." if one
assumes that the MOQ way of looking at intellect is holy writ. I am
challenging the MOQ way of looking at intellect, or hadn't you noticed? So
it is only a logical error like "wet dryness" if one assumes that intellect
is purely static. I do not make that assumption. Is this so hard to
understand?
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:
You see it as confusing and contradictory because you insist on your
presuppositions. I am challenging those presuppositions. If that's rudeness
then all questioning of assumptions is rude. (Matt has interesting things to
say on this subject, in the "A Question of Balance" thread.)
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.
Scott:
Work on it. Hint: I do not equate intellect with concepts. Concepts (and
routine manipulation of symbols) are the static intellect that dynamic
intellect leaves in its wake. So again, your criticism of what I am saying
amounts to saying that I am violating holy writ.
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.
Scott:
Again, I don't want to apply the static/Dynamic split to static quality. You
see, I do not consider intellect to be wholly static. Once again, you are
saying "the MOQ way of using the word 'intellect' is set in stone. It shall
not be challenged."
DMB continued:
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.
Scott:
This in spite of the fact that several times I have denied the claim that
mystical reality is intellectually knowable? So once again: I deny that
mystical reality is intellectually knowable. Instead, I think that mystical
reality escapes any attempt to capture it conceptually. I also think that
dynamic intellect escapes any attempt to be captured conceptually. This is
why I distinguish dynamic intellect from static intellect. Please show me
somewhere where I have claimed that mystical reality is intellectually
knowable before you make this claim again.
DMB continued:
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.
Scott:
Since I am not a theist, I am unlikely to be operating for theistic reasons.
Nor do I have an anti-mystical streak. I do have criticisms of the way you
(and Pirsig) think of mysticism. I prefer the differential mysticism of
Nagarjuna (as elucidated by Magliola) to the centric mysticism of Pirsig's.
(I've gone over this many times, so no sense in repeating it again.) To see
this as being "anti-mystical" is tantamount to saying that Pirsig's way is
the only allowable way to interpret mysticism. Well, it isn't.
DMB continued:
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.
Scott:
If you don't get me, how do you justify levelling all these accusations at
me? But, yes, it is confusing to you. And that is because you filter what I
say through your beliefs, while what I am doing is challenging those
beliefs. Your filters result in gross distortions of what I am saying, so it
is no wonder you don't understand.
I am fighting for acceptance of the claim that not only does intellect imply
value (as the MOQ says), but that also value implies intellect. For there to
be value, there must be an awareness of preferences, of alternatives, and
selecting from those alternatives presupposes that the one selected is
better than the others. This requires intellect (comparisons of what might
be, as well as what is). Otherwise, one might as well be talking about a
mechanical process. Note that none of this implies a being that has
intellect. I suspect that supposing this is the source of your suspicions of
a hidden theist agenda on my part.. Intellect no more has to be thought of
as "A thinks that B" than value has to be thought of as "A values B". There
is just Intellect (as there is just Quality), and the A's and B's acquire
their A-ness and B-ness as a byproduct of intellect/value.
Now, if one agrees with this, then the way the MOQ treats the word
'intellect' must change. Hence, I am saying that this change can be done by
thinking of Intellect as being another name for the (non-)thing that Quality
also names, and that a useful distinction can be made into dynamic and
static intellect, in the same way as DQ/SQ.
- Scott
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 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 12:16:08 GMT