Marsha! Thanks a million for the full transcript of the letter from Pirsig to Paul Turner, because ,in it there are some things that have been bugging me about the Intellectual level since reading ZMM, Lila, Lila's Child (still haven't finished) including Bodvar's SOL argument and previous posts. As I understand it, this level (to use Bodvar's term) has been a "weakness" within the MoQ and has been bothering many people since its introduction, not least because Pirsig is seen as not being very 'conclusive ' about the issue. In other words he doesn't really want to commit himself to 'clarify and define' i.e. set boundaries. Okay, be that as it may.
Bear with me please, I am a simple pattern of values, not well versed in philosophy nor metaphysics. If I do commit 'logical errors' or 'misinterpretations' at least try to follow the 'spirit' of what my feelings are, transformed and objectified by the inevitable use of language. There is a problem with what constitutes the 'Intellectual level'. In other words...what is included and what is excluded. What type of human activity can properly be 'classified' as 'intellectual' level activity? Pirsig is very 'clear' about this: "When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much clarity can be gained by recognising a parallel with the lower levels. Just as every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic patterns are biological..., so every intellectual level pattern is social although not all social patterns are intellectual". But, as Pirsig argues, to avoid broadening the intellectual level "to a point where it is losing all its meaning" it has to be "cut off somewhere, and it seems to me the greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled manipulation of *abstract* *symbols that have no corresponding particular experience* and which behave according to rules of their own". ( Letter to Paul Turner, Sept.2003). I have been able to lay my hands on a dictionary (Longman): the word 'abstract' of course has many meanings but Pirsig has pointed the way to which meaning is meant and this is : 'existing only as an idea or quality rather than as something real that you can see or touch'. Now, lets start at the start( and this may be tedious for some but for me it is essential): (1) If language is not recognised as a ' tool' that makes (not so much creation) but continuation and 'binding of social patterns of value possible I don't know what is. But , as we all know, this process of uttering sounds.... this language also (2) allows/ permits/ provides the means for us to abstract ie take on a 'meta-position'...i.e.reflect on our activities and on our thoughts( and reflect on these again) in other words it makes abstraction possible. Language, by general agreement in the MoQ discussions is a social pattern of value. It belongs at the social level. This is where the 'weakness, confusion' starts, I am suggesting that it is more than a Static PoV because it is also an inherent part of the Intellectual PoV. Language makes communication/ transmission of meaning possible and it is also our only 'tool' to make sense of our abstractions. They are inextricably interwoven with eachother. So now I will do some backtracking: In previous posts( re: Commie Talk and USA bashing) I argued that governments are social PoV's and that therefore place what they do, what they talk about, how they plan how they use collected taxes and distribute these, making plans about infrastructures,education,welfare,science, research,conservarion,sustainability, the economy etc, deciding on policies for all these etc ,at the social level. Now, it was pointed out that: No Andre...these truly belong at the intellectual level! Thinking about the economy is a science therefore intellectual etc etc. The problem is.. I am still confused and least of all convinced. I am talking to my neighbour about the flowers she grows in her garden...are we intellectualising? If I record this conversatuon in a book and publish it does it belong to the static level of intellectual value? For weeks and weeks I have listened to the parliamentary debates of the Federal Govt. in Australia. Absolutely brilliant! It was verbal masturbation at the highest quality, Paul Keating at his best...and all recorded in Hansard to be placed in the libraries. Are they intellectual patterns of value?? They probably are. And this lies at the heart of the confusion and to be honest, Pirsig is like a Zen master's guide...by allusion, hint, whip, stick, koan etc. Work it out yourself!! But this is not how to 'sell' the MoQ to your friends, family, interested people ( or maybe it is?) My suggestion/ resolution to this 'tension' within MoQ is to put forward that "intellectualising" about those patterns that correspond to particular experience are social patterns of thinking. Put more formally they are Social Level static patterns of Thinking) SLT's . SLT's refer to that thinking based and immersed in inorganic, organic and social PoV's (and all their possible interactions). They do refer to these PoV's because they are, in the sense of the definition given, as real as you and me. In our everyday lives we are continuously communicating within and about these patterns. This "division" will clear up a whole heap of 'garbage' from the intellectual level! It will separate the SLT level of thinking from true intellectual PoV's. ( Am I becoming elitist?) By suggesting this I am saying that the intellectual level needs to be recognised as truly becoming a guiding, dynamic force informing SLT"s. I think in this sense the MoQ has a lot to guide and inform. But here is also a problem to which I will return later. A cook-book as a static pattern of intellectual value on a par with e.g. the theory of relativity? No, given this division, the cook-book clearly belongs to the SLT pattern of value. I would not even want to call it a 'low pattern of intellectual value' because according to the definition and guideline by Pirsig this type of intellectual activity is firmly grounded in biological patterns which is a lower level of (intellectual) morality. And if it is used by the chef to attract customers to his restaurant it becomes part of the Biological/Social PoV's. This is why I dared to suggest that some CEO's/ managers/ players of the financial markets, etc, have an ?LT : all that is motivating them comes from greed and nothing else. ( in this example a "BLT" i.e. biological level of thinking). Does Lila have quality? Biologically she does, socially she's pretty low on the scale and as an intellectual she is nowhere. Given this division, 'intellectual' social programmes such as capitalism and the free market, socialism, communism, the New Deal etc because they are firmly engaged in the "manipulation" of 'real' experiences belong to SL'T. And this is the same for 'freedom of speech, trial by jury, etc. We really need to re-think the "relationship" between the social and intellectual levels. I think that the concept of SLT may assist in 'separating' the levels as well as clarifying them. My own, limited understanding of the creation of this "intellectual level' confusion is because Pirsig, after having firmly done away with with SOM in ZMM reintroduced them in Lila, wherein the MoQ came to fruition. I do not understand his motivation but it weakened his gains.Why split the 4 levels into objective and subjective?!! He should not have done that! In/Organic and Soc/ Int are not the S/O division. But then again, did he need the S/O to reach MoQ? Of course!! You have to start somewhere! The strenght of the MoQ is that it has placed itself at the level of "static intellectual pattern of value". Is a book on gardening also a static intellectual pattern of value? Maybe it is...each to his/her own patterns and fulfilment of these. (This gives an interesting angle on Marx's notion : to each according to their need, from each according to their abilities). Pirsig made a curious statement in Lila on page 203: "The intelligence of the mind can't think of any reason to live...". Maybe he is right but I hope not. Our thinking is made possible and is inextricably connected with all its 'lower' levels. I cannot think of a reason not to live but...maybe I do not understand. Have we "invaded" ( Lila pp204-5)?? The intellectual level is based upon/ made possible through its parent SLT level. It is the moral responsibility of Int. PoV's to guide, challenge, contradict and force SLT into ever expanding levels of resposibility towards its parents, grand parents and great grand parents ( i.e. social, organic and inorganic patterns of value). Maybe some of you find this a load of rubbish. Maybe it will set some people thinking. If it is rubbish and I am on the wrong wavelenght...fine then I am in the wrong world. I hope this will stimulate the discussion beyond the level of arguing and justifying a cut in personal income taxes! And without wanting to put to a too fine a point on it we need to clean up the intellectual level...with the aid of the MoQ or any other idea that keeps the road open to being receptive to DQ. I have grabbed this thing by the balls and I want to keep squeezing until it really becomes unbearable. We need to learn from ever higher evolving forms of comprehension and communicating and translating these into ever higher evolving forms of awareness. This also has implications for where we put what. I am not suggesting I know all the answers. At present I am simply too tired to suggest a rearrangement of patterns in a better way. I just hope that these ideas have sparked something. Wan an ( good night) Andre 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/
