Mati
On 15 July you wrote:
> 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. I am 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.
I'm equally amazed, but like Paul (the apostle) on his way to
Damascus I was struck to the ground by Pirsig's ideas. I've told
about this in my "Quality Event" essay, but what made it such a
revelation was his insight that the mind/matter chasm (SOM)
wasn't indigenous to existence, but had arrived at a time in history.
and developed to a state where it looked like reality itself.
Consequently I hate to see the SOM - that Phaedrus had by its
throat - being on the loose in LILA.
> 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?
First of the all, the social level has nothing to do with welfare or
social security, but is all about the biological individual's
submission to something greater than itself - the COMMON
CAUSE. The most striking example these days is Islam that
transcends the individual and what they voluntarily sacrifice
themselves to. Christendom has become an "intellectual religion"
and don't demand such things.
Against and above this looms intellect with its OBJECTIVITY that
regards social value subjective (only in people's mind) or as
RATIONALITY that renders it (social value) irrational, as
MODERNITY that looks upon it as out-dated, as KNOWLEDGE
that deems it ignorant ...etc. in so many ways as there are varieties
of the subject/objective dichotomy.
> 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?
Because I see intellect=the S/O distinction it follows that I regard
ZAMM's description of the emergence of SOM as intellect's birth.
The MOQ postulates that all values served its parent (before
breaking out as a separate level and if Homeric times (2000 BC)
were purely social.
Perhaps in Homer's time, when evolution had not yet
transcended the social level into the intellectual ... (LILA)
one may well imagine budding "intellectuals" - skeptics - who had
begun to question the god-ruled, mythological (social) reality, yet
not daring to express their doubt, Still they were clever
(extraordinary clever to have ventured out of the social realm) and
thereby served their communities in countless ways.
> 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?
How language is used for social purposes we see (again) in
temporary Islam cultures with mindless recitation of the Koran
verses, no one is supposed to question anything just repeat the
words. Intellect on the other hand is the absolute opposite, here
language is used for the enquiring, skeptical, questioning
purposes.
> 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?
The social-intellectual relationship has been equally difficult in
intellectual- and social-steeped cultures (because no level knows
the Q context) and Pirsig (correctly) believes that the MOQ will
alleviate it. However I disagree with his idea that intellect can be
enlightened to see that its "devaluation"of social patterns creates a
social nightmare. Intellect is static and must by definition pursue its
mission. It's the MOQ that gives us the grand view and it is no
intellectual sub-set. Intellect is MOQ's sub-set!!.
This creates a level-like relationship between the intellectual level
and the meta-level of MOQ in which (relationship) intellect dislikes
a reality above itself and, but the MOQ has already begun to
exercise control of intellect (at least for those who subscribe to the
SOL) . Look at me, before the MOQ I regarded SOM a "monster"
that oppressed me greatly, now that SOM has become the fourth
Q level I'm quite happy with it - proud even.
> 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. 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.
Yes, and we see how the MD atrophies once left to itself, the MOQ
isn't applied to anything and no wonder, without the SOL it has
zero use. About the said P.T. letter.it hovered on the brink of
admitting the SOL, "not before the ancient Greeks" actually means
affirmation but then he added the "Oriental intellect, independent
of the Greeks" that everyone took for a rejection (but isn't,
philosophy in "the search for truth" sene is SOM) The serious blow
was the "manipulation of symbols" definition, that now renders the
MOQ paralyzed again. Look to DMB's of July 13, where he
analyzes intellect in the symbol manipulation light. Speak of "lead
balloon". Pirsig has said to me (privately) that if SOL has value it
will "percolate to the top", but as long as he speaks against it
publicly ... alas.
Thanks anyway
Bodvar
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/
