From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 18:43:09 BST
Part two of my 'supplement'.
My objection is that there are many other realms of human endeavour in which a similar
differentiation can be made, but which are not captured in the conventional sense of 'intellect',
most especially if it is thought of as 'logical or scientific reasoning', but even the modified
sense of 'manipulation of symbols' etc. Let us look at "song" (which I take to include poetry).
At the biological level, there are clear benefits for an organism in communicating in particular
ways (display, warning, communication etc). There will be selective pressure (consistent value
preferences) pushing such communications to evolve in remarkable ways, leading to the wide variety
of bird and animal communication that we see today.
At the social level, these abilities are put to the service of (society exercises consistent value
preferences towards) those abilities which enable the society to flourish. So: those abilities to
sing or tell poetic stories, which foster social identity, encourage abilities which serve the
society (courage, obedience) and so on will be developed and will come to have a role within that
society. So just as there are 'healers' at the social level, so too will there be poets and
songwriters - those who can use words in the service of the society. Despite my earlier comment,
Shakespeare is, in fact, quite a good example for much of this. His History cycle of plays was
clearly aimed at glorifying the ruling Tudor dynasty (Elizabeth), and therefore his use of language
there, however wonderful, can be described as being dominated by the preferences of the social
level.
At the higher level, a process of abstraction can be carried out, which can discern 'rules' of
poetic expression (eg alliteration, assonance, rhythm, metaphor etc). This much can, fairly
straightforwardly I feel, be described as 'intellectual'.
Any particular poet can be analysed according to whether their work is governed by social level
values (that is, they are best described and explained through reference to the social level; their
work is geared around social values) or whether they are governed by. something higher. Pirsig's
discussion of rhetoric in ZMM is relevant here - knowledge of the rules (intellectual ability) is
insufficient for good use of language.
At this point, a reference back to my essay: I see the key constituent of level 4, the equivalent of
the 'machine language interface' described by Pirsig in Lila, as being the 'autonomous individual',
ie a person with the capacity to judge independently of the society which formed that person, that
capacity being constructed on the basis of refined emotions, ie wisdom.
Once this autonomous individual has come into being, just as with DNA, there is now a whole new
realm within which to 'win the game' - and I see the governing values of this level as being aptly
described as 'eudaimonic', ie with the pursuit of individual quality. Each autonomous individual has
a unique set of preferences, tendencies and insights, and the opening up of the fourth level is an
opening up to that person of the possibility to develop and evolve (to exercise preference) in an
individual fashion. Although such individual flourishing is dependent upon the social level for its
existence (eg through economic wealth), the determinations, decisions and judgements made by such an
individual cannot be adequately described through reference to the social level. In explaining the
course of life of an autonomous individual, the chain of explanation stops with that individual - it
does not then refer back to the social patterns of value which originally formed that person.
To my way of thinking, a play such as Hamlet (even more so a play by someone like Tennessee Williams
or Harold Pinter) is the product of a unique and individual personality, reflecting the tastes and
judgements of that person (the 'autonomous individual'). The static pattern which is the play
'Hamlet' cannot be adequately described through the consideration of social values, but only through
a consideration of the intentions of the individual author William Shakespeare.
I see this 'realm' of level 4, ie the eudaimonic, extending across the whole spectrum of human
achievement, art, literature, film and science, and including bodily achievements, whether sporting,
spiritual or sexual. It represents all the things that we would naturally think of as representing
Quality in a human life. Just as Kuhn makes a distinction between normal science and revolutionary
science, so too can we make the parallel distinction between level 3 science, which is thinking
governed by social patterns of value, and doesn't require independent judgement, and level 4
science, which is creative, and which does depend upon the independence of judgement. In particular,
I see the struggle for individual integrity and the recognition of the value of a unique human being
as the central realities of the fourth level; I see psychotherapy and the other 'mental health'
fields as being classic level 4 disciplines. In the high achievements of the culture, these
achievements provoke in us an awareness of Dynamic Quality, they transport us outside of ourselves.
Yet these achievements are themselves static patterns - lines on a page, brushstrokes on a canvas,
notes in a melody. I view them as static patterns which flourish at the fourth level, dependent upon
the existence of an autonomous individual whose responses to quality, instead of being governed by
the inherited social values within which that person has been formed, are direct responses to DQ
itself, governing the development of that individual through time.
As I understand it, to make 'intellect' the governing value of level 4 is to take one part of level
4 and give it a (falsely) superior place. It places logic and science at the summit of human
achievement, when, to my way of thinking, those are merely components of excellence, they are not
the definition of excellence (Quality) itself. Those capacities cannot function by themselves; they
are exercised according to the deciding values.
This for me sums up a difference between Pirsig's thinking in ZMM and Lila: indeed, one way of
describing my eudaimonic thesis is to say that I am trying to reintegrate the best elements of Lila
with the governing ideas of Zen; or, put differently, to re-establish the primacy of rhetoric over
dialectic, without losing the overall framework of the MoQ. For dialectic IS 'logical and scientific
reasoning', it IS 'the manipulation of symbols'. In Zen, it is dialectic which is "a kind of evil
thing, an evil deeply entrenched. which pretends to try and undertand love and beauty and truth and
wisdom but who real purpose is never to understand them, whose real purpose is always to usurp them
and enthrone itself." Instead of dialectic, ZMM describes the superiority of rhetoric, or,
specifically arête - built on the virtues, codified by Aristotle as eudaimonia, activity governed by
excellence, Quality.
So I see this as the defining choice, that between two hierarchies of the good. In any conventional
sense of the meaning of 'intellect', you have a MoQ structured around the celebration of dialectic
(ie dialectic is the highest static level of Quality). Yet for me - and for the author of Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - such a conception lacks Quality. I'm not sure that there is a
'knock-down' argument demonstrating that this conception is the right one - that would be to
surreptitiously establish dialectic as primary, after all - but if the vision of ZMM seems to be the
right one, then I think my eudaimonic thesis may appeal.
Sam
You must fuse mind and wit with all the senses
before you can feel truth.
And if you can't feel truth you can't have any other
satisfactory sensual experience.
(DH Lawrence, 'Sense of Truth')
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 : Fri May 30 2003 - 18:42:00 BST