From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 22:02:00 GMT
Hi Mark,
> In a message dated 11/4/03 2:36:21 PM GMT Standard Time,
> writes:
> > I agree this is NOT right. One of the few times I disagree with
> > Pirsig. Obviously bugs don't think. Aware, yes. But thoughtful, no. No
> > ability to symbolize, to abstract.
Mark,
> If you read what Pirsig is saying you do not disagree with him!
> PIRSIG:
> 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?
I disagree with Pirsig and apologize for not making myself clear. Over
Pirsig's objection, I claim the term intellectual (ability to
symbolize, to abstract) CAN be extended to include primitive cultures.
Otherwise, I can't see how we can distinguish our human ancestors from
apes.
Mark 4-11-03: Hello Platt, Please perish any thought that i am ordering you
to agree! ;) But, I feel you do agree with Pirsig here, and this is my
reasoning:
First of all, we make a distinction between, 1. Intellectual patterns. 2.
Social patterns. 3. Culture.
Culture is a combination of 1 and 2, as Paul has been careful to remind us.
Therefore, you can see that primitive 'cultures' are a combination of 1 and 2,
but dominated by 2, while advanced cultures are a combination of 1 and 2, but
dominated by 1.
Just because primitive cultures, (a combination of 1 and 2) are dominated by
social patterns does not exclude thinking. i.e. ability to symbolise and
abstract does it? Of course not! We know they did this because there is language,
art and artefacts surviving from this period. But no literature indicating
dominance of intellectual patterns, and that is why Pirsig indicates the Bible as
an example largely devoid of intellectual 'cultural' value - but the Bible, in
virtue of being the manipulation of symbols is, as a matter of MoQ fact,
composed of intellectual patterns (written language). The language is socially
directed, but writing, qua writing is an intellectual activity.
You, I, and Pirsig agree.
I extend 'thinking' to primitive cultures because the evidence shows
they thought about things in an abstract way, planned ahead, imagined
future consequences, buried their dead, etc.,etc. Animals can't do
those sorts of things in a deliberate, structured way, nor can they
paint symbols on cave walls. :-)
Mark 4-11-03: Absolutely.
Again, in citing the Ancient Greeks, Pirsig defines intellect as the
dominance of an intellectual elite at that time. Later that dominance
declined and during the Dark Ages it was buried completely. I think the
legitimate dominance of intellect (and the beginning of the
intellectual level) occurred at the beginning of the 20th century when
the intelligentsia started to think they could run society and really
botched things up, like the Marxists in communist Russia and New Deal
democrats in the U.S.
Mark 4-11-03: I agree communism was a dreadful mess, but the new deal, qua
new deal did help many to do some good? Surely it's a bit strong to place
Marxist regime and a programme for rebuilding the infrastructure of a democratic
society together?
But, that's another story for another day. :-)
Platt
Mark 4-11-03: And i can look forward to that for the inherent Quality you
bring to such matters. Moving back to 'culture,' do we share a common ground,
You, I, and Pirsig?
Mark
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 -
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 Nov 04 2003 - 22:06:09 GMT