From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 21:11:38 BST
> Hello Steve, Bo and all:
>
> Steve said to Bo:
> You continue to try to woo DMB toward your S/O level idea because of
> what you see as his defense of the social level which is surprising since
> for DMB, to say someone is on the social level is an insult. I don't see
> myself as an attacker of the social level and I don't see DMB as the social
> level's defender. (To me the phrase "on the social level" makes little
> sense because I think about the levels as types of patterns of value. I
> translate it as "this person or forest of static patterns is dominated by
> social values.")
>
> dmb says:
> I still don't get it. What's the difference in meaning. When I say that this
> or that type of value pattern is "on the social level" it is only meant to
> place it within Pirsig's hierarchy. So what's the problem. Of course we are
> talking about types of patterns. That's what the hierarchy is all about,
> classifying values. What else could it possibly mean? Intellectual values
> are on the intellectual level. Social values are on the social level.
> Nothing could be more simple.
Steve:
If you really are talking about value patterns, then there is no difference;
however, when you use the phrase "on the _____ level" you are usually
talking about types of people or types of laws or types of governments or
other subjects and objects.
>
> DMB had said:
> ..., If I had to come up with a pithy little definition of intellect I'd say
> its "thinking about thinking".)
>
> Steve replied:
> DMB first presented "thinking about thinking" as a definition of philosophy,
> and I think it's the best one I've heard. However, I find it far too narrow
> to define intellect. DMB, the fact that you limit intellect to "thinking
> about thinking" explains why we differ so much about categorizing
> intellectual patterns of value. I'm glad to finally have your definition of
> intellect, DMB, rather than examples of intellectuals.
>
> dmb says:
> Far too narrow? Maybe I should have emphasized the "pithy little" aspect of
> the statement. In any case, the fact that I like to use examples from the
> world we all experience does nothing to alter this idea, it only makes the
> idea relevant to actual experience. Again, I don't see the problem. Do
> intellectuals serve as an example of what intellectual values look like in
> real life? Of course they do. Duh! Pirsig sites many such examples in Lila.
> So what's the problem?
Steve:
I never said I had a problem. I don't think I deserve a "Duh" for not being
able to infer your definition of intellect as "thinking about thinking"
(rather than Pirsig's "simply thinking") from all those examples. As you've
been saying about Matt, it's up to the writer to explain his terms
(especially so in this case since you use a different definition of
intellect than the author of the books we're discussing). At any rate, I'm
glad you finally gave us your pithy little definition.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 21:14:58 BST