From: Pi (pi@mideel.ath.cx)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 20:38:00 BST
> >I personally took about 2 years to completely draw a boundary
> > around this thing called the intellectual pattern. Part of the whole
> > problem of intellectualizing intellectual patterns is that when you
> > try to draw a line around it, you have to draw a line around the line
> > drawing process!
>
> You've put your finger squarely on the nut of the problem. Until that
> infinite-regress paradox is addressed by each participant, intellectual
> descriptions of the intellectual level will continue to go around in
> circles without end.
>
> I have yet to find anyone who has made a clear distinction between
> intellectual patterns that belong in the intellectual level and those that
> don't. (Intuitive intellect is an oxymoron.). If there are intellectual
> patterns that don't belong, where do they go instead?
>
> I have also yet to find anyone who has offered a better definition of
> intellect than Pirsig's "manipulation of symbols." (Since that is the
> author's definition, I take it to be "Q-intellect.") Anyone have a better
> definition?
Hi Platt and all,
You accepted the validity of the paradox and then stepped right into it. I don't think looking for the definiton of static intellectual patterns of quality is a good starting point. That being said, I think symbol manipulation is a good definition. But, it is too broad. We can find symbol manipulation in purely biological and social patterns. Think about traffic patterns or the signals bees do to communicate. These counter-examples make it a bad definiton, but looking for the definiton was not a right path anyway.
Also, when we see confusion between so-called different levels of Quality due to some definiton, it further exemplifies that Quality cannot be defined. I don't think there is a clear cut difference between the different levels of static quality. In fact, patterns shift in and out of one level to another. For example, your breathing cycle is a biological pattern most of the time but it is possible to be so self-conscious that it becomes an intellectual process. Thus, another part of the problem of defining intellectual patterns is that we are trying to define something that is too fluid.
I think Pirsig attempted to disect static quality to answer questions of day-to-day life. And he succeded, but in the process he did something that he so craftly avoided to do in ZMM. He defined Quality! He also left the purist in us unsatisfied. I like his initial division of Quality into static and Dynamic, but not the further divisions. However, they do help solve moral dilemmas of everyday life.
> Any takers?
After talking about why it is unnecessary and futile to define intellectual patterns of Quality, I will do just that. Why? Because I value doing that. :)
I cannot give a 'dictionary definiton' of intellectual patterns because I don't think of it in that form. I consider intellectual patterns to the be the patterns of Quality that include reason, logic, rationality, irrationality,... basically anything that involves thought. If needed, I can provide examples and arguments to back up my understanding. But I think it is straightforward and should not come as a surprise.
What do you (the reader) think about this pseudo-definition?
- Pi
-- "I didn't know it was impossible when I did it." 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 Jul 13 2003 - 19:40:16 BST