Re: MD The MOQ: An expansion of rationality

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 22:17:47 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD Battle of Values"

    Steve and All

    20 Dec. you wrote:

    Me earlier:
    > > Does Pirsig say that subjects and objects belong to the intellectual
    > > level?

    > I didn't want to say that subject and objects belong to the intellectual
    > level. I need to distinguish symbols and their referents to be more clear.
     
    > Intellect is the manipulation of symbols in both the MOQ and SOM.

    Steve, this brings us nowhere, let me just try another angle, terribly
    irrelevant, but bear with me.

    Way back I made a list of the "expressions" (I called) connected
    with each level:

               Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason.

    The first is more for rhyme's sake, but the rest has proved
    extremely useful in understanding the MOQ - a "task" that has two
    big obstacles: The first one is a mindish interpretation of intellect
    and the second is diminishing the social level.

    You once said that I "courted" DMB, this was for his strong
    defence of the social reality. For a long time he seemed to draw
    the correct conclusion from his own reasoning, but suddenly
    changed course. Anyway, the 3rd. level is one of outmost
    importance and required as much mental power as intellect, yet,
    its expression is definitely EMOTIONAL , ref. Homer's "Iliad" which
    is one long tale of unfetterd such. The blurb on the cover says:

        "The stirring story of the Trojan War and the RAGE of Achilles
     has gripped listeners and readers for 2700 years. This timeless,
    powerful poem still vividly conveys the horror and the heroism of
    men and gods wrestling with TOWERING EMOTIONS ...etc." (my
    capitals)

    Now, to my point. What replaced the mythological era was the age
    of reason (that's applies regardless the MOQ) and the conclusion
    to draw is: If one identifies the myth era with the social level - and
    this is characterized by emotions - then the intellectual level must
    be expressed by reason! (and that reason is the S/O distinction
    can't be denied).

    I could go on, f.ex refer to the analysis of Islam vs The West as
    society vs intellect, something I know that Pirsig endorses. It's
    plain that Islam reflects Emotions: The public burial scenes of
    naked grief; the street rallies of as naked hatred, the devotion of the
    Sep.11 "pilots". This compared to how embarrassing such behavior
    seems to the average Westerner, our skepticism regarding emotion
    and attempts to avoid it in judicial proceedings ....everything fits the
    social=emotion, intellect=reason scheme. As plain is it that
    intellect has nothing to do with "manipulation of symbols" or (least
    of all) "mental activity".

    But in spite of this indicators of the true nature of the social-
    intellectual relation, when members this discussion group is called
    upon to define these two levels, they seem to abandon "reason":
    Society retreats back into pre-pre-historic time to become some
    insignificant episode between Biology and Intellect, and intellect
    follows this drift back to have its origin in song-and-dance rituals.
    Even Pirsig lapses into these notions so remote from his own
    convincing presentation of intellect's emergence out of society in
    ZMM. Strange as he - in the letter to Paul - speaks about so recent
    times as Homer and the biblical prophets as pre-intellectual.

    Sincerely
    Bo

    PS.
    You ended thus:

    > I'm fine with thinking of intellect in terms of a symbol/experience
    > distinction though I don't buy your claim that symbols are subjective and
    > experience objective.

    Maybe you don't buy it, but look at this by Amilcar Kabral over at
    the MF

    > > When RMP writes "independently manipulable signs" i think he's
    > > referring to the fact that we have pictures, signs and words in our
    > > heads that only 'stand for' what we see/hear/feel in the external
    > > world.

    This is SOM and it follows inevitably from the symbol-manipulating
    intellect, regardless what twists and turns you may do to try to
    avoid it.

    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 Dec 22 2003 - 21:18:59 GMT