From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 06:24:12 BST
Hi Dan.
27 Sep. you wrote:
> I've noticed several members have objected to the definition of the
> intellectual level offered by RMP in Lila's Child. Since I fail to see
> a problem I haven't responded. I looked up the definition of intellect
> in the dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary) and this is what
> I found:
Maybe my "solution" post have made it clearer for you how the
quandary developed. If not ...well to start with your last.
> The definitions and the synonyms seem to be a perfect fit with Robert
> Pirsig's annotations in Lila's Child. RMP has said that he didn't
> define the intellectual level in Lila, and ZMM doesn't pertain
> directly to the MOQ, so I don't see why there is an uneasiness over
> the LC annotations or why a different formulation of intellect is
> needed. I know you've been over all this many times, but could you
> explain your objections to me in simple terms using definitions we can
> all agree on?
The dictionaries pose no difficulties.:
> a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and
> understanding. b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly.
Right, it's to think abstractly ..to reason. The ability to distinguish
between thinking and what the thoughts are about. Abstract implies
something separated from something else. Shortly the subject/object
divide.
But even if ZMM doesn't pertain directly to the MOQ, SOM does and it
postulates that thoughts belong to a subjective (mind) realm, while
that what thoughts are about belong to an objective realm. Thus when
Pirsig in LC goes on to define intellect as "mind" intellect no longer
remains the ability to divide the subject from the object, but becomes
subjectivity itself. And THAT is something else.
But the SO Metaphysics is to be rejected, i.e: the mind/matter divide
is invalid and then to introduce "mind" as the intellectual level, brings
difficulties. ....for the MOQ at least which is supposed to be non-
somish! Like below
> "For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say that the intellectual
> level is the same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of
> symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience."
According to this intellect's value is "collection and manipulation of
symbols ...etc." consequently that which the symbols "stand for" -
experience - are the levels below (intellect). Thus intellect becomes
excepted from experience - the subject observing objective reality
exactly as in SOM!!! As I see it (intellect) should be defined as the
symbols/experience divide itself (S/O); A new static value ...which it is
in the MOQ!
As emanates from my "solution" post it is my conviction that Pirsig
intended intellect to be exactly that. And that he (in 1993 shortly after
LILA) saw a conformity with Jaynes' idea of language (voices)
becoming thoughts, and the birth of the intellectual level, if so we
clearly see the "mechanism", but I won't repeat all that.
Hope you found this intelligible
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 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 06:32:05 BST