Arlo --
> I don't think "intellect" has anything to do with "individuals" > or "societies" other than it is what emerges out of the social > dialogue of individuals. This is what Pirsig refers to when he > points out that intellect is always socially mediated, that it > has been a "myth of independence" that says the "world of > objects imposes itself upon the mind" free from social mediation. > > "what a mind thinks is... dominated by social patterns" and > the critical observation that "our intellectual description of > nature is always culturally derived". > > ...one has to recall that for Pirsig this "collection" and > "manipulation" is socially-mediated. It derives from > the social level. May I remind you that "mediation" does not mean "derivation". It means "intervention between conflicting parties or agents". "Derive", on the other hand, means "to take or receive from a specified source." The source of intellect is not "social dialogue". It is "what a mind thinks". > But intellection requires FIRST the individual to have > assimilated what Pirsig refers to as "the collective > consciousness". With all due respect, Arlo, your persistent crusade on behalf of a "collective consciousness" is not only epistemologically unsound, it hinders the acceptance of Pirsig's philosophy. Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
