From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 12:08:01 BST
Hi Bo, Scott, Squonk
Scott's message
> however made me see
> something regarding Squonk's position, but first
> some objections to the
> "mind/thinking" interpretation of intellect.
That is, Pirsig's interpretation, supported by Squonk
and myself.
> 1) All levels are static, but I find nothing to hold
> on to in "thinking" AS
> SUCH, it's boundless.
It is bounded by thoughts and concepts, but it is open
to intuition. Joe often goes into this topic in his
posts.
> 2) There must be a possibility of some new value
> growing out of intellect, but
> what can possibly emerge from "conceptualization" AS
> SUCH?
Any new value would 'grow out of' Dynamic Quality,
which the MOQ maintains cannot be intellectually
defined, so your question cannot be answered in words
or concepts of any kind.
> 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?
As above, I can't imagine a new level. However, trying
to describe in precise fixed terms the ultimate nature
of reality through the manipulation of symbols is
"evil" to Dynamic Quality, ask a Zen Buddhist.
> 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.
I think it is better to say that biology doesn't
"interpret" reality, it just experiences Quality
biologically.
> 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 is the confusion that arises from a notion of
'social level thinking'. The social level is not
'thinking', it is non-hardwired rituals, customs,
relationships and institutions which hold society
together; that we have conceptualised these values is
a result of the intellectual contemplation of them,
not the values themselves.
Also, the intellect (like everything else) evolves, it
did not spring up one morning from nothing into the
mind we have today.
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.
Any static intellectual pattern of value is static
value by definition, not just S/O.
> > 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!
It would seem that Pirsig's MOQ is no longer the
dominant theory on this forum.
> > 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!
This just means that the concept of the individual did
not form a central part in the organisation of
experience, it's not a different 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.
Dynamic Quality is not the mind.
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html
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 - 12:09:30 BST