From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 07:29:37 BST
Hi Scott, all,
> I have to agree that Pirsig sees the intellectual level as starting with the
> social. For that reason, I think I am leaning toward Sam's eudaimonic
> position, and in general, that Pirsig's choice of name, the "intellectual
> level" is a mistake, if it is deemed to mean "the mind" or the "manipulation
> of symbols...".
One of the things that needs clearing up is surely what is meant by 'thinking', 'symbols' and
'patterns of experience'. In what way is the mental processing of, say, a dog, different to that of
a human being? I would argue that a dog is able to mentally process <something> that stands for the
patterns of its experience. The question is whether that <something> is best described as a symbol
or not - and indeed, whether 'thinking' is the same as 'manipulation of symbols' at all. I touched
on this in my discussion with Wim, but it came at the end of a long sequence of posts, so people
might have missed it. It follows again here:
"Well, I just don't think it is particularly helpful to see a brushstroke as a symbol - or even a
painting as a 'symbol'. I think there is such a thing as 'symbolic art' (eg Dali, or, better, the
way in which certain items such as books, cups, cats etc had particular meaning for eg Medieval
culture - ie were symbols properly understood) and in those contexts there are such things
(patterns!!) which function as symbols. My own sense of what 'symbol' best describes is symbolic
logic, or mathematics. I see those as what Pirsig had in mind with his definition of 'intellect',
but perhaps I am wrong in thinking this (LC #50 Pirsig mentions such things). I can see that the
conventional definition of 'symbol' *can* be stretched to include it, but then there is nothing
which is not symbolic, and the interesting uses of the word 'symbol' then require another word to
carry out their function. (Pirsig often says we should use words in their customary sense, and I
agree with him on that - it's why I don't like 'intellect' for level 4. "We must all use terms as
they are described in the dictionary or we lose the ability to communicate with each other." (LC
#24).
But then Pirsig *does* seem to *define* symbol as 'pattern of experience' (intelligence is simply
the manipulation of symbols, "intellect is simply thinking" LC#95). So symbol seems to simply mean
'mental content', ie something which the brain uses. (Interestingly, Pirsig writes "All objects are
in fact mental constructs based on experience." LC 59) In which case we need to distinguish between
the customary use of 'symbol' and the use within the Pirsigian-MoQ-intellectual level. So a painting
can contain normal symbolism, but the artist creates out of his sYmbols, ie what is created as
patterns in his mind (capital Y as second letter is deliberate).
Yet I think this immediately runs into problems. What is it that distinguishes the mental content of
an intellectual from the mental content of, say, a chimpanzee with a three-hundred word vocabulary
in American sign language? Or a four year old human child? When an antelope or gazelle perceives a
lion or cheetah tracking it, what is used to describe the brain content? Or, for MoQ purposes, what
do you use to distinguish the sYmbolic brain patterns within the mind of a gazelle from the sYmbolic
brain patterns in an intellectual? I think this definition collapses. But I could be wrong!
Pirsig actually states that his use of sYmbol only refers to 'language-derived' symbols, which I
think supports my point, ie it rules out what is going on in the mind of a gazelle, or in the mind
of a non-linguistically developed great ape or child. Yet again, this reliance on language takes us
back to the conventional use of symbol. So I still think my objection holds; the definition of
sYmbol is dependent upon an extra-mental phenomena (language)."
And therefore, I would argue, there is manipulation of symbols and thinking at the social level.
Sam
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
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 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 07:32:03 BST