From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Jun 29 2003 - 21:50:35 BST
Scott R. and Squonk. Maybe relevant for David and Paul.
Squonk's "rich" response to my apppearance was as expected and I don't
intend to continue in that vein. Scott's message however made me see
something regarding Squonk's position, but first some objections to the
"mind/thinking" interpretation of intellect.
1) All levels are static, but I find nothing to hold on to in "thinking" AS
SUCH, it's boundless.
2) There must be a possibility of some new value growing out of intellect, but
what can possibly emerge from "conceptualization" AS SUCH?
3) The higher level's purpose is to control the lower one and necessarily
regards it as "evil". Can one imagine a new value level that looks upon
"manipulations of symbols" - AS SUCH - as "evil" - something to be
stemmed?
No, it's the way "symbols are manipulated" (=reality is interpreted) that can
be regarded as good or bad not concepts as such. The biological way of
interpreting reality is bad to the social way of ...and so on upwards.
Scott said:
> There is also this quote, number 95 in LC, in response to your
> statement: "...it had puzzled me greatly that Subject/Object metaphysics
> *may* be viewed as the intellectual level of the MOQ." Pirsig said:
"I don't think the subject-object level is identical with intellect.
Intellect is simply thinking, and one can think without involving the
subject-object relationship. Computer language is not primarily
structured into subjects and objects. Algebra has no subjects and
objects."
> But this also does not resolve anything.
> First, a minor point: the bit on
> computer language is irrelevant. Computer language is not human
> language. It is just a way to encode instructions for computers, and has
> nothing to do with thinking. But the algebra bit is. Mathematics is
> thinking which is not thinking about something else.
This sounds right. My own comments are:
Pirsig's words: " ..and one can think without involving the subject/object
relationship..etc." is the very point. Early humankind NOT emerged from the
social stage had the same mental capacity as ourselves. So if "thinking" -
as such - is identified with the intellectual LEVEL it makes nil of the social
part of the MOQ. This argument is repeated by Squonk as if it refutes (our)
position! It's frustrating! Pirsig also says "the subject/object LEVELl" He
regards the S/O divide a value level, not merely an intellectual pattern. How
is that?
Scott ctd.
> So, yes, the intellectual level is more than the S/O divide, but also
> yes, it depended on the S/O divide to exist as a new level.
OK, intellect is more than the S/O divide in the sense that it builds on
the the lower levels way of "thinking", but it's value - it's STATIC value - is
that of distinguishing between what's subjective and what's objective.
> Now you mentioned
> that I didn't press this enough with Squonk, but as I said to him, I'm
> not all that concerned with preserving the word "intellectual" in naming
> this level.
Any particular name in mind?
> Whatever the name, I would say the fourth level begins with
> the human mind learning to separate reality into subjects and objects.
Agree!
> Until
> then, all thinking, all symbol manipulation, was determined by social
> and biological concerns, and was not seen as an independent activity of
> the individual.
Exactly!
Today I found this (DMB Sat.28)
> Paul, its not that "one can write myths without a mind", its that one can
> write a myth without the intellect. I can see from your posts that you
> have a radically different sense of the mythos/logos distinction, so I
> won't even try to go there. But briefly, I'd simply assert that for tens
> of thousands of years humans have lived in organized societies, told
> stories, held beliefs and all kinds of things that we'd consider
> "intellectual" in some vague sense of the word. But I think these
> cognitive skills, these obvious signs of intelligence are not what Pirsig
> is talking about in describing the intellectual level. I mean, this is
> though to talk about. We should even be more careful, i suppose, in
> tossing out words like "think" "mind" and "intellect" without saying
> exactly what we mean. It seems the whole debate is about making a
> distinction bewteen two "QUALITATIVELY" and distinctly different KINDS of
> thinking, two seperate forms mind.
which is straight to the heart of the matter and makes much of my above
superfluous, but now to my small insight.
What Squonk calls "thinking" or "mind" (maybe what Scott says is "more
than the S/O divide") is the dynamic backdrop of it all. Squonk speaks of a
"DQ/SQ tension" (intellect) and yes, intellect is the place for an SQ/DQ
tension because it is what will spawn the new level.
I would have liked to touch on the "consciousness/awareness" term too, but
this is enough.
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 : Sun Jun 29 2003 - 21:51:00 BST