Hi Mati,
I think you maybe discount those who "get" Bo's SOL but actually don't
entirely agree ? But anyway - you pose straightforward questions to
answer .... mine inserted below [IG] ...
On 7/15/08, Mati Palm-Leis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MD Group,
>
> I find it interesting that we continue to go round and round (I think
> it is
> now over 7 + years) on this issue of what is the intellectual level
> and
> what does it mean and how do we discern what an intellectual value is.
> This is a really good question with a variety of possible solutions and
> understandings, some possibilities good, some lacking. I thought I
> would
> provide some humble thoughts on the matter with the disclaimer that
> overall
> I personally think Bodvar's approach with S/O divide being the basis
> for the
> intellectual level (in the static form) being the best one going.
[IG] I've agreed with Bo before that the emergence of the S/O divide
is OK as the historical point at which the intellectual level emerged.
If that is all we want from MoQ - history - then I'd have no argument.
I just think it is plainly evident that the content of the
intellectual level is not "defined" by SOMism now and for all time ...
MoQ is an evolutionary model, with a future. Either the intellectual
includes that future or we predict further levels above the SoMist
level. There is more than SoMism, no ?.
> amazed that he is able to endless explain and re-explain his point of
> view
> with only recently in the past year with some people "Getting it" to
> some
> degree. That being said here is a series of questions that might
> provide a
> litmus test to anybody who thinks they (including Bodvar) are able to
> better
> define or understand what the Intellectual level and intellectual
> values
> are.
>
> 1. How does your definition or understanding of intellectual
> level/value differentiate the social level from the intellectual level
> as
> well as social values from intellectual values?
[IG] I think the main "axes" that define the difference are
social (constraint) vs intellectual (freedom), and
social (collective) vs intellectual (individual).
I've said this a million times. But exactly how ? Apart from the
directions / dimensions of these axes, I've never yet come to any firm
demarcation lines, so I simply treat these as many possible patterns
within one "cultural (socio-intellectual) level" (for now).
>
> 2. Given there is a evolutionary process to each of the levels,
> what
> is a possible historical point in which represents the likelihood for
> the
> birth of the Intellectual level, and what is the basis for this
> period/event(s) chosen?
[IG] Yes. No problem with the birth of SOMism as the first incarnation
of the intellectual level. I'm just not satisfied that history is the
whole story.
>
> 3. I think (an assumption of mine) that both social and
> intellectual
> levels use language, but in different ways. Please describe how each
> level
> utilizes language to sustain its level?
[IG] Precisely. This symbolic manipulation / semantic-lingustic
communication is shared by both levels (another reason I resist using
this as the definitive demarcation too). I think you identify a good
angle - the way language is used, rather than language per-se.
(Clearly SoMist language - invented at the emergence of the
intellectual - infected and spread to social level patterns too.) I
think the real difference is what the levels "seek to do" with
language - about intent, purpose, telos. Social tends to control /
conserve, Intellectual tends to freedom / creation. I've often formed
the interim conclusion that this is the best distinction we have.
>
> 4. Given that intellectual values dominate it's parent level, the
> social level, yet must sustain and maintain a relative harmony with the
> social level. Given your definition or understanding of intellectual
> levels
> how do intellectual values do that?
[IG] That is the $64,000 question. How do social constraints (best)
live in balanced harmony with intellectual freedoms ? My answer has
been evolving for 7 years so far. My latest thinking involves a telos
- a traditonal mythology - that sets future "direction" for "our
culture's" evolution. Scary thought. Whatever, I'm convinced there is
(by definition) no entirely intellectual (SOMist, trad-rationalist or
otherwise) answer to that question. Think about it. (clue - Nietzsche
/ Godel / Wittgenstein / Hofstader and more.)
>
> I have read Lila and much of Pirsig's work and am very familiar with
> what
> Lila has to say about some of these questions in a general context.
> Yet in
> Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner he seems to have made his final
> contribution
> to this question. In a private final correspondence with him long
> ago,
> about a research question related to this very question of intellectual
> values, he more or less has hung his hat his letter to Paul Turner in
> his
> addressing the intellectual level. That being said, and with the
> deepest
> sense of respect and gratitude for Mr. Pirsig, I feel that we have
> failed to
> really move forward on this question.
[IG] I agree. Perhaps in the context of this Q&A, you should re-state
(simply in summary) Pirsig's position from that letter ?
> Again I think Bodvar's approach,
> begins to provide the capacity to approach these, I believe, essential
> questions. Thus providing us with the capacity to move MOQ forward.
[IG] Paradoxically - this is precisely my objection to Bo's approach -
great historically, not much use for moving forward ;-) (Great to have
your contribution Mati - pursue this thread to some "conclusion" for
all our sakes.)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mati
