Re: MD The Intellectual Level

From: Joao (joaocs@sapo.pt)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 04:14:29 BST

  • Next message: Valence: "MD test (ignore)"

    Hi Jonathan and all,

    Some comments:

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:49 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The Intellectual Level

    > Hi Bo, Platt, Sam and all
    >
    > BO
    > > I HAVE done nothing BUT criticize this "thinking" intellect. ALL my
    > > activity has been about it because it undermine the MOQ as
    > > presented in LILA.
    >
    > Bo, the reason we seem to be in agreement lately is that we both have a
    > problem with how Pirsig presents the Intellectual level in Lila. Let me
    try
    > and explain how I see the problem.
    >
    > Pirsig's MoQ devides up reality into patterns at different levels.Atoms
    are
    > Inorganic patterns, lifeforms are Biological patterns, etc. That is all
    very
    > well, but as soon as we start STUDYING those patterns, we are engaged in
    an
    > inttelectual activity.

    Building on that:
    If it is an individual spending his time *studying*, it's intellectual
    activity, but writing a book is also a social activity, as the result may
    end up become some kind of reference or standard. This *reference* or
    *standard* is a social pattern, like the theory of gravity.

    > Quantum THEORY, bioLOGY, socioLOGY are all intellectual patterns. I think
    > that Magnus expressed this problem way back, claiming that the patterns
    all
    > have their intellectual counterpart. IMO, this is the Platonic worldview,
    > with empirically detected patterns (appearances) as reflections of
    idealized
    > forms. The pragmatic twist on this is to see the Patonic "forms" as
    > "intellectualizations" of what the senses detect. In either case, the
    > dichotomy is in essence the Cartesian division between Mind and Matter.
    As
    > soon as Pirsig put an Intellectual level in his MoQ, he put himself firmly
    > into the Cartesian camp. IMO, this is the bone of the problem. Bo's SOLAQI
    > idea is an expression of the problem, not a solution to it. Pirsig's
    feeble
    > attempt to use the Social level as a buffer between the Intellectual world
    > and the material world (see Lila and Pirsig's essays) does more damage
    than
    > good, undermining the idean of social patterns as REAL VERIFIABLE
    patterns.

    Again, building on that:
    I am really agreeing with you, but feeling good about the Social level as a
    buffer. It is not so bad to undermining the idean of social patterns as real
    verifiable patterns, biological and physical patterns ARE verifiable. Maybe
    would be good to see social patterns as verifiable in a small, closet set of
    individuals. But not if new individuals *enter* the system, because the
    social system would change by definition.

    > I thus keep asking myself, what is an intellectual pattern?
    > BO states:
    > > A thinking intellect can't result in the intellectual values Pirsig
    > > mentions in LILA. My best example is an independent juridical
    > > system, but also democracy is a strange offshoot of "manipulations of
    > > symbols".
    >
    > The point is, IMO both the judicial system and democracy are social
    > patterns. An obvious example would be a group of young children taking a
    > vote to decide on what game to play, not because of some theoretical
    > democratic understanding, because it is a social pattern that they have
    > copied and perhaps found to work. Of course, the theorizing about
    democracy
    > remains intellectual.

    But the (resulting) theory is social.

    > My own preferred solution to this problem is to put intellect back where
    it
    > belongs, i.e. AT EVERY LEVEL. Without Intellect, there are no levels. The
    > inorgnic level includes both "physical matter" and what we think and feel
    > about it, and the same goes for the biological levels. Surely, that is the
    > heart of the quality idea as expounded in ZAMM. That very beuatiful idea
    was
    > destroyed when Pirsig gave intellect its own level.
    >
    > Jonathan

    Maybe what is at every level is quality. The intellectual level is the place
    where minds are, with each own's theories, thoughts and feelings.

    Hope you have found some quality. This may be somewhat orthodox, but really
    makes sense to me.

    Joao

    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 19 2003 - 04:19:06 BST