Arlo and Platt.
April 12.
>From your advanced banter I have gleaned that I disagree with Arlo on
the social issue and with Platt on the individual and with Pirsig on the
intellectual. The Descartes example highlights the issue.
> > [Arlo]
> > You explain nothing except say you "can't skip a level". According to my
> > MW, "originate" means "to come into being". We can look at the following
> > three quotes from Pirsig to see that is what he means.
Pirsig:
"The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I
think... " "The seventeenth century French culture exists ...
therefore I am." "Mental patterns do not originate out of
inorganic nature. They originate out of society".
> > As you can see, Descates "comes into being" from the social level. He
> > "is" by virtue of this collective assimilation alongside his bounded
> > proprietary experience. He "thinks" because of culture. He "is" because
> > of culture.
That intellect have its origin in society is plain, but just as plain is it
that
the next level is a break with its origin. Maybe Pirsig is the source of
Arlo's "he thinks because of culture" due to P's:"mental patterns
originate out of society" which can be interpreted as if the 4th. level is
the ability to think, which is wrong. Intellect is about THINKING
differently (in Descartes' case) from the social level thinking that had
dominated France up to this time (L'Ancien Regime)
Platt:
> According to Merriam-Webster, "originate" is defined as "give rise to."
> That's the meaning I use. Thus, the social level gave rise to Descartes
> and a million other French men and women, but the individual Descartes
> "is" and thinks" because of his unique combination of all four levels,
> much like his uniqe DNA.
Yes, the social level that made it possible to reach the 4th, in this
connection that the country France had reached a level of
sophistication that could support a "leisure academical, philosopher
class" (exactly as the City States gave rise to intellect in ancient
Greece) that turned against its parent social) values. Yet, Renè
Descartes had to wait for his society to be ripe before he could declare
that (his) thinking was the proof of (his) being. Here I believe I
disagree with Platt who seems to think that an individual with
Descartes' qualities could have said the same in Medieval times .. or
appear in an Afghan village tomorrow.
Pirsig:
"Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived"
Arlo:
> > Note he does not say "influenced". He says "always derived". Always. And
> > he doesn't say "individually derived". Here again we see the half of
> > Pirsig you ignore, the half that shows that the origins (and indeed
> > content) of mind are social.
Again the fallacy of intellect as a mere social appendix. Why is it that
Pirsig picks on intellect? Aren't all levels as much "derived"? Yet, their
very purpose is to overcome their bonds and start controlling its
parent's value. This goes for intellect too, it's not supposed to care
about social origins, this context is only seen from the MOQ. However,
I kind of agree with Arlo on the individual issue, strictly seen social
value is just as much conveyed by individuals because only human
beings have reached that level.
Bo
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/
