From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 19:48:08 BST
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Steve, Erin and all:
>
>Steve (falsely) said:
>I was dumbfounded in the past about DMB's insistance that Lila doesn't
>manipulate language-based symbols that stand for patterns of experience.
>But if you keep in mind that DMB only thinks of the levels as types of
>people, then his position on Lila's intellect makes sense. I think you'd
>agree that she is not an intellectual. To DMB this means she diesn't 'exist
>on the intellectual level' or something like that.
>
>dmb says:
>I only think of the levels as types of people? No. You have misunderstood.
>I've not accomodated your request to talk about static patterns all by
>themselves for reasons I've already tried to explain. Its true that I DO
>think that people are the BEST way to talk about the levels because that's
>how the various values are exhibited in real life. People ARE the patterns
>and so we can see what values are being upheld by an examination of specific
>people. More to the point, the reason I don't take Lila's ability to speak
>English as a sign of her intellectual quality, besides the undisputable fact
>that the author says she has none, is that plain language only requires the
>social level. The intellect is not necessary to speak. If that were true our
>ancestors would have been mute until about 500BC and you and I would not
>have uttered a word until we were in high school. Language is NOT the kind
>of symbol manipulation refered to in the LC definition. The use of language
>in the social level sense does not allow for such manipulation, only
>conventional use. Even children can talk, right? Does anybody imagine that
>your average 5 or 10 year old could rightly be called intellectual? I don't.
>Maybe we could say that about W.J. Sidis, but he's clearly an exception. Or
>consider what Pirsig says about the great epic poetry of Homer. He says it
>was written before the intellect was born, when social level values like
>celebrity were still the highest values. Clearly Homer could use langage
>far, far better than Lila could, yet he was not expressing intellectual
>values in those writings.
>
>Steve said:
>You are talking past him when you suggest that Lila is participating in
>intellectual patterns of value despite not being an intellectual type of
>person. He doesn't like to talk about patterns of value so the distinction
>has no meaning for him.
>
>dmb says:
>I don't like to talk about patterns of value? Huh? That's about ALL I do.
>You just don't like the WAY I talk about them, which is in terms of specific
>examples. I would have thought such would be helpful and that it really
>doesn't help to talk about it in vague generalities. And let me say that
>when I discuss the levels of values in terms of specific people like Lila,
>I'm not talking about her personality or style. I'm talking about the VALUES
>she holds - or rather the values that hold her, that dominate her forest.
>
>Here's a question for you. How do you reconcile Pirsig's comments about Lila
>with the assertion that she "is participating in intellectual patterns"? I
>really don't see how you can. I mean, if you have to flatly contradict or
>otherwise ignore statements like this to make sense of the MOQ, then
>obviously something in that understanding has gone wrong. Your assertion
>just doesn't add up. Sometimes we see an unusual interpretion of things that
>works and that's cool, but to read these passages and then still insist that
>Lila has intellectual quality is, well... To put it way too nicely, its not
>good.
>
>"Does Lila have Quality? Biologically she does, socially she doesn't.
>Obviously! Evolutionary morality just splits that whole question open like a
>watermelon. .. Biologicall she's fine, socially she's pretty far down the
>scale, INTELLECTUALLY SHE'S NOWHERE."
>
>"She missed the whole point of everything. She's after Quality, like
>everybody else, but she defines it entirely in biological terms. She DOESN'T
>SEE INTELLECTUAL QUALITY AT ALL. Its outside her range."
>
Okay DMB,
I have to work on something today so don't have
time to play with you, i will try and give a more full
answer tommorrow.
First I'd like to point out your quote on pg 341
"Biologically she does, socially she doesn't"
has a little more after it.
STILL DIDN'T GET ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.
THERE WAS MORE THAN SOCIETY AND BIOLOGY INVOLVED
I find it funny you want to set these ideas in
stone when its clear that the character Pheadrus
doesn't feel its complete and still exploring it.
I also find it funny that the question
"does Lila have quality" took Phaedrus off guard.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Okay one more thing, throughout the book I see
Rigel "comparing" Phaedrus and Lila,
Lila "comparing" Rigel and Phaedrus, and Phaedrus
"comparing" Lila and Rigel.
Now you say she doesn't see intellectual quality
then what is she comparing?
How do you reject or let go something you don't
see?
Saying she doesn't see a 5th level, well you
might have something there, 4th level seems
ridiculous to me. It's like saying I am going
to reject the 7th level, even though I don't
see it.
erin
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 20 2003 - 19:37:41 BST