Re: MD The Intellectual Level

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 17:06:12 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD myths and symbols"

    Hi Platt,

    I think Bo was referring to a different post, the one where I talk about sYmbols.

    My point about the definition of thinking is that 'thinking' becomes a derivative term, not a
    definitive term; that is, whatever you make as the criterion for 'thinking' is the true criterion
    for distinguishing between levels. (If you say X-thinking is at level 2, Y-thinking is at level 3,
    Z-thinking is at level 4 then the true criterion for the difference between levels 3 and 4 is that
    between Y and Z, not between 'thinking' and 'not-thinking'. So for Pirsig, the criterion of the
    fourth level isn't "thinking" or even "intellect", it is "the manipulation of symbols, derived from
    language, which stand for patterns of experience, in the brain").

    I'm working on something a bit more substantial about this....

    Cheers
    Sam

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 2:46 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The Intellectual Level

    > Hi Sam, Bo:
    >
    >
    > Sam:
    > > I'm not aware that there is any agreement as to what 'thinking' actually
    > > is. Dependent on how you define it, dogs, cro-magnons and physics
    > > professors can all think. Trouble is, as soon as you define it, you are
    > > making something other than *thinking* the criterion of distinction between
    > > the levels.
    >
    > Sorry. I don't get what you mean by the sentence beginning with "Trouble
    > is . . ." The criterion of distinction between the levels is created by
    > thinking. Why does defining thinking destroy that criterion? If anything,
    > a definition ought to point out the characteristics of the pattern that
    > makes the criterion possible, characteristics such as the collection and
    > manipulation of symbols that Pirsig suggests. After all, is not a
    > definition simply using one set of symbols to describe another?
    >
    > Bo said I should look at "Sam's excellent piece about thinking." So I'm
    > looking and don't see a problem. I must have a blind spot . . . which will
    > come as no surprise to some. :-)
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Sat Jul 05 2003 - 17:04:11 BST