From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 03:40:18 BST
Bo,
> 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.
Could it just appear boundless to us since "thinking" is the best we can do?
(I'm actually asking -- I don't know.) One might also consider the
difference between wordful thinking and wordless thinking. The latter is
claimed (by Georg Kühlewind, after Rudolf Steiner) to be possible after much
self-discipline.
>
> 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.
There is Zen (and other mystical) anti-conceptualism (Strictly speaking, Zen
doesn't consider concepts evil, just limiting).
> 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.
This I don't agree with, that is, Barfield's point is that our mental
capacity *is* different. His point is that "thinking about", what he calls
alpha-thinking, requires the S/O divide, and it's a qualitative difference
(to use DMB's term), not due to lack of a concept. I am assuming that Pirsig
is referring to mathematics, where the thinking has no object that is
thought about (one could say that the thinking is its own object). But this
ability, as I said earlier, was not available in pre-S/O times.
> 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?
Yes. That is, I think Pirsig is not overall clear on this, perhaps
especially in his comments in LC. Either the intellectual level is a MOQ
level (something that potentially conflicts with the next lower level), or
it is just a facet of the social level. Paul (I think it was) argued that we
should restrict the social level patterns to social institutions (the UN,
law courts, etc), but these can't exist without the corresponding symbolic
patterns. In fact, they *are* symbolic patterns. Until there is an
independent level there is no conflict, and if there is no potential for
conflict there is no point in the MOQ considering it to be a separate level.
>
> 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.
Agree, though some restatement is necessary for the value of mathematics.
>
> > 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?
No. I would prefer to call it intellect, under the assumption that non-S/O
symbol manipulation (eg, mythic thinking) is not intellect. But Pirsig's LC
comments rule that out. I'm considering Sam's position: the "autonomous
individual" level.
>
> 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.
Indeed. I consider it very important to note that the fourth level (how's
that for weaseling out of the question of nomenclature :-) is in its
infancy. We are not rational enough, detached enough, S/O divided enough. We
still let social and biological concerns rule our thinking. I don't mean to
imply that the S/O divide cannot or should not be transcended, but (I think)
to move too soon typically results in moving back to the pre-rational. In
particular, the ego needs to be turned into an object. (And, of course, one
can think in terms of subjects and objects without espousing SOM.)
>
> I would have liked to touch on the "consciousness/awareness" term too, but
> this is enough.
Another minefield :-)
- 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 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 03:44:17 BST