From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 08:53:17 BST
Hi Platt
26 Sep. you wrote
> 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:
Thank you for responding so promptly and comprehensively. I will be
a bit slow in my own response(s), because I need to think ...a
requirement that most of the participants have progressed beyond ;-)
> "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.)
I had hoped that you would comment my claim that the ALL
definitions - Pirsig's included - are reconciled in the the language-
thought transition theory. After all Pirsig declared this to fit EXACTLY
with his own opinion about it!. It not only fuses the mind-intellect with
the S/O-intellect but Pirsig's "manipulation-of-symbols"-intellect as
well. Language-derived!!! ...No problems there There was something
more to it about "..taking place in the brain and ..standing for
experience" and as this is the the very essence of language. The
salient point is that Pirsig says that VOICES can easily be
interchanged with THOUGHTS and this solves the whole quandary.
Don't get me wrong dear Platt, but what I fear is that some don't want
to hear about any "solution" along such much too ordinary-sounding
lines. Intellect of the MOQ is supposed to inherit the "spiritual"
position it has in SOM. Hope I am wrong.
> 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.)
Right, but I will answer this in my reply to Sam.
> 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.'
Yes, and yes again, but when Pirsig (in ZMM mostly) discusses these
flashes of insights and intuitions it is the impact of QUALITY he wants
to demonstrate. After postulating a DQ/SQ divide it can't be his
intention that the intellectual level to assume DQ's role? Intellect is a
static level and its patterns - be they thoughts" - have to be along
more conventional lines. Admittedly, he speaks of pre-intellectual
perception in ZMM and intellect is what "filters" experience at this lofty
stage, but that it should be the sole "antenna" for DQ? How could the
static sequence progress at all?
As I see it intellect can only present reality through its static grid. And
as the various thinkers/writers testify, it is a bleak remnant of the
REAL experience.
PLATT:
> 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.
Verbal and written language is much more cumbersome than
"thinking" (language), but - as said - even thinking falls short of
mystical - dynamic - subliminal - experience.
> 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.
Wow! How come we suddenly agree? With a small twist: Intellect's
value is that of a division between symbols and 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."
Agree! Hope you will keep commenting
Sincerely. Bo
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 Sep 28 2003 - 08:55:55 BST