From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 16:52:03 BST
Hi all
I wrote to Robert Pirsig to ask for a clarification on the MOQ
definition of the intellectual level; when he speculates it might have
begun; and the exclusion of oriental intellect and the MOQ from the
intellectual level if it is limited to an extension of Greek philosophy.
I received a reply on 27th September which I include in full below.
Interestingly, Pirsig mentions the infamous "intellectually nowhere"
line in Lila. I didn't ask about it in particular but his comments might
resolve the confusion on what that statement means (I have DMB and
Steve's discussion in mind here).
BO AND PLATT: I think your discussions about Bo's "solution" are pretty
well supported by this letter.
BO: I may add that I find little to disagree with in your "solution"
post and I will be reading Julian Jaynes to see in more depth where you
are coming from in terms of the "transition". I am pleased to see that
you accept the "manipulation of symbols" definition of the intellectual
level by linking it to language. I now hope you can see that the MOQ
does not require a level of its own, but I will return to debate the
finer points of your solution once I've finished the Jaynes book.
Cheers
Paul
---------------------------------
ROBERT PIRSIG 23rd SEPTEMBER 2003
The question you raise about the intellectual level has troubled me too.
When I answered Dan Glover in Lila's Child, I remember being a little
annoyed that anyone should ask what the intellectual level is-as though
he were asking me what I mean by the word, "the." Any definition you
give is more likely to complicate understanding than simplify it. But
since then I have seen the question grow because the answer I have given
is inadequate.
First of all, the line that, "Biologically [Lila's] fine, socially she's
pretty far down the scale, intellectually she's nowhere. . ." did not
mean that Lila was lying on the cabin floor unconscious, although some
interpretations of the intellectual level would make it seem so. Like so
many words, "intellectual" has different meanings that are confused. The
first confusion is between the social title, "Intellectual," and the
intellectual level itself. The statement, "Some intellectuals are not
intellectual at all," becomes meaningful when one recognizes this
difference. I think now that the statement "intellectually she's
nowhere," could have been more exactly put: "As an intellectual Lila is
nowhere." That would make it clearer that the social title was referred
to and the dispute about her intellectuality would not have arisen.
Another subtler confusion exists between the word, "intellect," that can
mean thought about anything and the word, "intellectual," where abstract
thought itself is of primary importance. Thus, though it may be assumed
that the Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had intellect, it can be
doubted that theirs was an intellectual culture.
When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much clarity
can be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower levels. Just as
every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic
patterns are biological; and just as every social level is also
biological, although not all biological patterns are social; so every
intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns are
intellectual. Handshaking, ballroom dancing, raising one's right hand to
take an oath, tipping one's hat to the ladies, saying "Gesundheit!"
after a sneeze-there are trillions of social customs that have no
intellectual component. Intellectuality occurs when these customs as
well as biological and inorganic patterns are designated with a sign
that stands for them and these signs are manipulated independently of
the patterns they stand for. "Intellect" can then be defined very
loosely as the level of independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic
and mathematics can be described as the rules of this sign manipulation.
Just when the evolution of the intellectual level from the social level
took place in history can only be speculated on. I certainly wasn't
there when it happened. Julian Jaynes', "The Origin of Consciousness in
the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind," has impressed me, but other
speculation seems valid. Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, could be the
pivotal point. Maybe Solomon. Maybe the early Greek philosophers. Who
knows? But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies
the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is
conspicuously absent. The world is ruled by Gods who follow social and
biological patterns and nothing else.
There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of "social" down into
the biological with the assertion that, for example, ants are social,
but I have argued that this extends the meaning to a point where it is
useless for classification. I said that even atoms can be called
societies of electrons and protons. And since everything is thus social,
why even have the word? I think the same happens to the term,
"intellectual," when one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.* If
one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures just
because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about
chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms? Don't they make
conscious decisions? How about bacteria responding to light and
darkness? How about chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our
intellectual level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its
meaning. You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the
greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is
confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no
corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules
of their own.
I'm not sure if all of this defines the intellectual level any better
than before, or if any such definition is useful. It may be that the
intellectual level cannot describe itself any better than an eye can
directly see itself, but has to find itself in mirrors of one sort or
another. In a scientific materialist mirror there is no such thing as
intellect since it has no mass or energy that can be objectively
measured. From a philosophic idealist viewpoint there is nothing but
intellect. From a Zen viewpoint it is a part of the world of everyday
affairs that one leaves behind upon becoming enlightened and then
rediscovers from a Buddha's point of view. But for anyone who really
wants to know what intellect is I think definitions are not the place to
start. Since definitions are a part of the intellectual level the only
person who will understand a definition of intellect is a person who
already is intellectual and thus has the answer before he ever asks.
Perhaps you can pass all this along to the Lila Squad with the caveat
that this is not a Papal Bull, as some would have it, or just plain
bull, as others will see it, but merely another opinion on the subject
that it is hoped will help.
* The argument that Oriental cultures would not be classified as
intellectual is avoided by pointing out that the Oriental cultures
developed an intellectual level independently of the Greeks during the
Upanishadic period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C. (These dates may
be off.) The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation
but some kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in the
MOQ that I know of that leads to this conclusion.
------------------------------------------------
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 - 16:53:57 BST