Hi Chris, >> Chris: >>>The intellectual >>>pattern exists in the MOQ only, and it does NOT mean thinking - > >> Steve: >> But RMP says it does mean thinking. He defined it as such. Could it be >> that you are not thinking about thinking in the way RMP is?
Chris: >Maybe, It's hard to say, RMP is very vague about this... Steve: Not vague at all. Several times Pirsig has defined intellect as thinking by which he says he means symbol manipulation. >> Chris: >>>Furthermore, when this view takes hold, it is >>>naturally so that it says that "thinking" has always been around, logical >>>thinking, illogical thinking - it doesn't matter, it's Thinking all the >>>same. Since this is a fundamental way of perceiving the world this becomes >>>the most basic and natural way of things, Thinking is fundamental, and >>>makes >>>up the world. >>> >>>When the MOQ comes along and says that there really is no such thing as >>>thinking, > >> Steve: >> Where does Pirsig say there is no such thing as thinking? > >Chris >Within the MOQ world-view, everything is Quality and manifestations of >Quality. "Thoughts" is a SOM term. Within a MOQ world-view we would say >"Inorganic, Biological, Social and Intellectual responses to Quality" a >SOMist would say thoughts. Steve: Thoughts still exist in the MOQ but they only refer to intellectual patterns. >Chris: >>>"But people has always been thinking!" you say, and "what about animals, >>>aren't they thinking?" - "the people of ancient Mesopotamia, weren't they >>>thinking?" Yes, they were, and, yes, they are, if you use "thinking" the >>>way >>>it has been used now for about 2000 years. > >> Steve: >> This is not what Pirsig means by thinking. He says that it is the >> manipulations of abstract symbols that stand for patterns of experience. >> Animals don't do that. Chris: >So what does a monkey do with his brain then would you say? Or a dog? Or a >elephant or.you get the picture - what do they do with their brains would >you say. Steve: To call any response to quality thinking is to make the word meaningless as you say, but the MOQ doesn't do this. To ask what a dog is thinking is to use the term very loosely and way too loosely for precision in defining intellect as a type of pattern. As to what animals do with their brains...animals respond to quality as everything else does, however, unlike humans, animals have no taste for intellectual patterns just as rocks have no taste for biological ones. They do not manipulate symbols as we do. Their brains formulate biological responses to biological and inorganic stimuli only. Animals have no preference for 2+2=4 over 2+2=13 or for for the cool guy over the nerd. It is true that animals don't make distinctions between subjective and objective knowledge, but in the MOQ intellectual awareness is much more about prefering truth to falsehood or a good rationale over a bad one rather than preferring to distinguish subjects and objects from one another over not making such distinctions. Regards, Steve 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/
