From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 14:50:11 BST
Hi Bo,
Thanks for further explaining your SOLAQI idea and attempting to
reconcile differences as to what constitutes the intellectual level.
I’ve no doubt that SOM and its assumption of an S/O split dominates the
intellectual level as the most significant part of what the
intellectual level is –"the manipulation of language derived symbols
for experience." That’s Pirsig’s own definition that arose when long
ago you posted the following:
"A while back we spoke about the emergence of intellect and I said that
in a way Subject/Object Metaphysics could be seen as identical to the
intellectual level of the MOQ."
In Note 50 in Lila's Child, Pirsig was concerned about types of
thinking your idea excluded:
"This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude non-subject-object
constructions such as symbolic logic, higher mathematics and computer
languages from the intellectual level and give them no home. Also the
term "quality" as used in the MOQ would be excluded from the
intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives intellectual meaning
to the term quality would also have to be excluded from the
intellectual level. If we just say the intellect is THE MANIPULATION OF
LANGUAGE DERIVED SYMBOLS FOR EXPERIENCE these problems of excessive
exclusion do not seem to occur. (Note 50. Lila's Child) (Caps added.)
Also, here’s Pirsig’s Note 129 that Sam referred to:
"I've always thought this is incorrect because MANY FORMS OF INTELLECT
DO NOT HAVE A SUBJECT-OBJECT CONSTRUCTION. These include logic itself,
mathematics, computer programming languages and, I believe some
primitive languages (although I can't remember what they are.)" (Caps
added.)
Pirsig’s point is supported by the following passage in "The Emperor’s
New Mind" by Roger Penrose:
"Non-verbality of thought
"One of the major points that Hadamard makes in his study of creative
thinking is an impressive refutation of the thesis, so often still
expressed, that verbalization is necessary for thought. One could
hardly do better than repeat a quotation from a letter he received from
Albert Einstein on the matter:
"'The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem
to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities
which seem to serve as elements of thought are certain signs and more
or less clear images which can be "voluntarily" reproduced and
combined. The above mentioned elements are, in my case, of visual and
some muscular type. Conventional words or other signs have to be sought
for laboriously only in a second stage, when the mentioned associative
play is sufficiently established and can be reproduced at will.'
"The eminent geneticist Francis Golton is also worth quoting:
"'It is a serious drawback to me in writing, and still more in
explaining myself, that I do not think as easily in words as otherwise.
It often happens that after being hard at work, and having arrived at
results that are perfectly clear and satisfactory to myself, when I try
to express them in language I feel that I must begin by putting myself
upon quite another intellectual plane. I have to translate my thoughts
into a language that does not run very evenly with them. I therefore
waste a vast deal of time in seeking appropriate words and phrases, and
am conscious, when required to speak on a sudden, of being often very
obscure through mere verbal maladroitness, and not through want of
clearness of perception. That is one of the small annoyances of my
life.'
"Also Hadamard himself writes:
"'I insist that words are totally absent from my mind when I really
think and I shall completely align my case with Gotten's in the sense
that even after reading or hearing a question, every word disappears
the very moment that I am beginning to think it over; and I fully agree
with Schopenhauer when he writes, 'thoughts die the moment they are
embodied by words'.'
"I (Penrose) quote these examples because they very much accord with my
own thought-modes. Almost all my mathematical thinking is done visually
and in terms of non-verbal concepts, although the thoughts are quite
often accompanied by inane and almost useless verbal commentary, such
as 'that thing goes with that thing and that thing goes with that
thing'. (I might use words sometimes for simple logical inferences.)
Also, the difficulties that these thinkers have had with translating
their thoughts into words is something that I frequently experience
myself. Often the reason is that there simply are not the words
available to express the concepts that are required. In fact I often
calculate using specially designed diagrams which constitute a
shorthand for certain types of algebraic expression. It would be a very
cumbersome process indeed to have to translate such diagrams into
words, and this is something that I would do only at a last resort if
it becomes necessary to give a detailed explanation to others. As a
related observation, I had noticed, on occasion, that if I have been
concentrating hard for some while on mathematics and someone would
engage me suddenly in conversation, then I would find myself almost
unable to speak for several seconds.
"This is not to say that I do not sometimes think in words, it is just
that I find words almost useless for mathematical thinking. Other kinds
of thinking, perhaps such as philosophizing, seem to be much better
suited to verbal expression. Perhaps this is why so many philosophers
seem to be of the opinion that language is essential for intelligent or
conscious thought! No doubt different people think in very different
ways-as has certainly been my own experience, even just amongst
mathematicians. The main polarity in mathematical thinking seems to be
analytical/geometrical. It is interesting that Hadamard considered
himself to be on the analytical side, even though he used visual rather
than verbal images for his mathematical thinking."
PH:
This seems to me to be enough evidence to support Pirsig’s view that
SOLAQI is too restrictive to fully explain the intellectual level.
Where I believe you go astray is your assumption that "there is no
difference between language and thinking" and your connection between
the intellectual level and verbal language as you expressed by saying
"the (false yet compelling) impression that thinking takes place on
another level of reality than verbal language." The latter I take to
mean that you believe the intellectual level consists solely of verbal
language. If so, I think I’ve presented sufficient evidence to show
that such is not the case. The intellectual level is better described
as man’s ability to use complex symbolic systems to represent
experience.
But, if you say SOM dominates the intellectual level today among the
masses of mankind, especially those in the Western world, I
wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, humanistic SOM cannot explain
values at all except in touchy-feely bromides like "Don’t be cruel."
I look forward to your comments.
Best regards,
Platt
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 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 14:54:36 BST