From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 16:30:30 BST
Platt, Scott
Platt:
I think :-) perhaps there's a problem in these discussions between the
terms intellect, a pattern referring to an action, and the MOQ's
intellectual level, a pattern referring to fixed hierarchy. Pirsig
suggests as much:
Intellect: "Intellect is simply thinking." LC, 95.
Intellectual Level: "For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say that the
intellectual level is the same as mind." LC, 25.
Note the first definition refers to a process--thinking while the
second refers to a fixed entity--mind.
If this is accurate, then we can agree that intellect as thinking
(manipulation
of symbols) began with early man, but that the intellectual level as the
mind
of modern Western man emerged, as you say, around 500 BC.
Paul:
I don't think the distinction between mind and thinking is necessary to
understand what is meant by "the intellectual level". We don't
hierarchically distinguish between "matter" and "gravitation" at the
inorganic level or between "the human body" and "sex" at the biological
level or between "government" and "legislation" at the social level.
Remembering that the MOQ postulates that all static quality is patterns
of value differentiated experience, and that everything is transitory
and stable only in terms of recurring experience, we could do well to
consider that verbs describe reality better than nouns.
However, it really isn't necessary to do away with the backbone of our
language as long as it is understood metaphysically that nouns are a
linguistic term referring to recurring experience only. As such, the
concept of "mind" is shorthand for the collection of mainly linguistic
symbols that stand for recurring experiences differentiated at all
levels.
> For evidence (to respond to Paul's objection), see the work of Julian
> Jaynes, Owen Barfield, Bruno Snell, and no doubt many others. Or
compare
> Homer to Plato, or the pre-Upanishadic Vedas to the Upanishads.
Paul:
I think that static intellectual patterns are just ideas and
relationships between ideas. Look at this dialogue from LC p517
"DG: When you say "this intelligence", I am assuming you mean "wissen"
since "kennen" is "recognition without intellectual interposition." If
such knowledge is not intellectual, where does it fit in the MOQ?
RMP: Yes, "wissen" is meant. "Kenntnis" would be the more primitive
recognition of a repetitive pattern, such as a baby first recognising
its mother's face.
DG: Would "kenntnis" be considered a primal biological pattern or more
along the lines of a Dynamic process?
RMP: More along the lines of an immediate Dynamic-to-intellectual
process. As the baby grows up its static intellectual patterns grow more
complex and dominating and its Dynamic awareness tends to become weaker
unless corrected by some special effort, such as Zen training."
Repetitive experience is symbolised in the mind as a "stable entity". It
is a mental construct deduced from experience, the symbols are what give
our experience continuity. (To avoid Bo-type accusations of idealism,
I'm not saying that ideas "create" reality - Quality creates ideas)
And in terms of Homer and the Vedas, writing is an intellectual level
activity:
"Those aspects of a language that a microphone or camera can pick up are
objective and therefore biological. Those aspects of a language which a
microphone or camera cannot pick up are subjective and therefore social.
If the gorilla understands what is meant in ways that are socially
learned, then the gorilla is acting socially. IF THE GORILLA CAN READ
AND WRITE and add and subtract then it is acting INTELLECTUALLY." LC
p533
Therefore, I deduce that the authors of the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the
Aranyakas, the Upanishads, Iliad, Odyssey and the Epic of Gilgamesh were
acting intellectually. In fact, the "bullae" found in the Eanna Temple
at Uruk dated at c5000BC seem to be used for some kind of accountancy.
Either way, it is not important to me to fix a date when the
"intellectual level" (which wasn't invented until the 20th century)
emerged.
I know this is an unusual position to take but Robert Pirsig has written
a metaphysics and provided a definition for distinguishing between the
hierarchical levels. One can make the choice between changing the MOQ to
fit existing beliefs or changing existing beliefs to fit the
understanding of the MOQ; or one can keep existing and new beliefs and
use them to understand and explain experience when valuable rather than
looking for "one global truth" about "the way things really were" and
"the way things really are".
Platt:
Like Paul I'm wary of those who purport to know how and what people
thought thousands of years ago. Civilizations like Egypt were not built
by numbskulls. But that logic was first codified by Aristotle I've no
doubt. That magnificent work sparked a sea change in man's thinking,
creating the initial stage of the intellectual level which was later
solidified by the Galileo and Kepler who introduced empiric-analytic
science by insisting on measurable experiments.
Paul:
This is one explanation that works within limits but where does it place
thinking prior to Aristotle? Where does it place the thinking of the
Australian Aborigines? They have a whole cosmology which explains
experience perfectly to them which has nothing to do with Aristotle.
Platt:
Be that as it may, do you also see a distinction between intellect and
the intellectual level as presented in the MOQ?
Paul:
No ;-)
Cheers
Paul
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 Aug 10 2003 - 16:32:13 BST