From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 03:57:34 BST
Hey Jon and all,
> RICK
> > > Quality is the "pre-intellectual" reality.
>
> Nice one Rick - and one worth remembering
>
> > > All four levels exist
> > > "post-intellectually". But note that in this sense, "intellectual" is
> NOT
> > > the same as the level of the MoQ called "intellectual" (which, to
> Pirsig,
> > > is a further subdivision of the category called 'subjects'). This
> > > pre/post-intellectual divide sits prior to all of the levels.
>
> This is a lot less convuluted if you leave out the Intellectual LEVEL.
> That the Inorg, Biological and Social levels represent post-intellectual
> reality is an inocuous truism.
> Throwing in Intellect introduces the problem of recursion that keeps
> cropping up in these discussions.
R
Hi Jon. I'm not unsympathetic to your complaints. In fact, abandoning the
intellectual level entirely in favor of the pre/post-intellectual split was
an idea I toyed with some years ago. But I eventually decided against it
(maybe you can change my mind?).
In LILA (ch12 p172) Pirsig claims that if you construct an encyclopedia of
four topics- Inorganic, Biological, Social and Intellectual- nothing is left
out (except DQ). It would seem to me that if the Intellectual level is left
out entirely, that encyclopedia would be incomplete as it would contain no
room for our 'ideas'.
Now, you wrote, "Without Intellect, there are no levels. The inorganic level
includes both "physical matter" and what we think and feel about it, and the
same goes for the biological levels." This would suggest to me that your
answer would be that the encyclopedia without an Intellectual section is not
"incomplete" it's just that the subjects that used to be grouped under
"Intellectual" have now been integrated into the sections about the objects
to which they applied (ie. the topic of physics would go in the inorganic
section; the topic of biochemistry would go in the biological section; the
topic of sociology would go in the social section, etc). And that would be
a pretty good answer (if that's not what you'd say, please correct me). But
I think that some patterns would still be left out.
For example, imaginary things. Take for example Pirsig's fictitious Miss
Lila Blewitt. I wonder, where in an MoQ encyclopedia (that has no
"intellectual" section for ideas) would I look to find the entry on Lila?
Unlike Verne Dusenberry (who was a real person), Lila has no isometric
counterpart in the inorganic, biological or social world. She exists only
in Pirsig's imagination (and in our own when we read his book). So I'm not
sure where to put her(?). Would you call her an "imaginary biological
pattern" and put her the section on biological patterns alongside you and I
and Pirsig? And if so, would that mean that "kryptonite" is an inorganic
pattern despite that fact that it only exists in the pages of Superman
comic-books?
enough for now
take care
rick
Probably the difference between man and the monkeys is that the monkeys are
merely bored, while man has boredom plus imagination. - Lin Yutang
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 15 2003 - 03:59:50 BST