From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 06:15:19 BST
Hi Sam
26 Sep.you wrote:
> As you know I share your doubts about the present construction of the
> 'intellectual' level, but my views have been rehearsed enough for the
> time being (NB to Paul Turner, I'm working on a proper response to
> your 'criticism' paper at the moment. Watch this space!).
Yes, we have been really busy on our respective projects.
> However, although I think you are on to something with SOLAQI I don't
> think your present position is sustainable. The following is why:
The proposed "solution" does not unanimously support the SOLAQI
but fuses all. So I would have liked to know how you see the
language-mind (voices-thoughts) transition. If it is viable I need longer
harp on it.
> To make my objection clearer, lets have an analogy. Imagine the first
> creature to crawl out of the sea was something that could be called a
> 'walking fish'. This 'walking fish' then begat all the myriad
> creatures that now wander around or above dry land. However, it would
> not be true to describe them all as 'walking fish' - at least, not
> without rendering the normal use of language irrelevant. In sum, it
> seems to me that you are confusing historical primacy with substantive
> definition.
Hmmm, if I get it right I may reply: But if the value that "begat" life in
the first place is the same that evolved all the way to the mammal
organism the same must be go for intellect. The intellectual "fish" that
crawled out of the social "sea" may be seen deep under the Quantum
Mech. for instance.
> Whereas I would accept that (on Pirsig's presentation in ZMM and Lila)
> there is a correspondence between the emergence of the level and the
> development of SOM (or at least, the intellectual revolution with
> Socrates - I have doubts about whether that is fairly described as
> SOM)
Do you mean if the description in ZMM is the emergence of SOM? Of
that I am pretty sure.
(ZMM page 367) : "What is essential to understand is
that up to this point (Parmenides) THERE WAS NO SUCH THING
AS MIND AND MATTER, SUBJECT AND OBJECT, FORM AND
SUBSTANCE".
>, I don't think that all the subsequent developments of intellect
> share in the S/O pattern. Consequently, I don't think that the
> intellectual level can be *defined* as subject/object logic. For
> example, neo-Platonism stresses 'participation', ie that full
> knowledge is only gained when there is a union between the knower and
> the known. Not very subject/object oriented that, is it?
Neo-Platonism? Plotinus f.ex was long after the said Parmenides and
had already started to long for the golden age before the divide. This
more than anything proves my point.
>And I think
> this is why Pirsig rejects the SOLAQI idea in Lila's Child - "many
> forms of intellect do not have a subject-object construction".
It would have liked if you evaluated that of language turning outside-
in. Pirsig says it's the easiest thing in the world to interchange the two,
and he also says that this matches his idea of intellect. In other words:
Social communicative language grew into independent thoughts (and
the illusion of these being incompatible created the SOM). But - and
this is important - the intellectual level frantically tries to hide its track
and claims to be solely "thinking".
The above "forms of intellect not having a subject-object construct" I
still find is intelligence which manifest as well on the biological as on
the social and intellectual levels.
> If there was a) an absolutely discrete break between the Socratic
> method and what came before it (or surrounded it) AND b) all other
> intellectual systems were subsets of that method, then I think SOLAQI
> would be correct.
Things only came to a head with Socrates, the shift may have covered
thousands of years.
>Yet I don't believe either a) or b) are true. Hence,
> although I accept the point linking together Pirsig's dominant
> presentation (ie without the qualifications that now weigh down the
> 'standard' MoQ), I don't think this implies the conclusion that you
> draw from it.
Wish I understood this :-).
> That's my two pennies anyhow!
Is that the new pence? ;-)
> One of the reasons I don't like the 'standard' account of intellect as
> a fourth level is that I don't know what is meant by 'thinking' - that
> is, in a philosophically rigorous sense. I think it is used very
> loosely in some of our arguments here, but that's really something to
> pursue another time.
I agree, and I see that Scott is on to the same path.
> In the meantime, may I just say that I'm glad you're back and
> contributing? Cheers Sam
Thanks a lot.
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 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 06:16:31 BST