Andrè. An impressive post.
17 October you wrote > 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 .... (snip) Yes, the 4th. level has truly been a bug. The hilarious thing is that the term "intellect" is defined by my dictionary as the power to distinguish between whats objective and what's subjective, but somehow it has come to mean "intelligence". > 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". Yes, THIS portion is clear. Language (f.ex.) may have its origin as a social pattern, but is adapted by intellect to convey ITS values. Like the carbon atom is inorganic but adapted by biology to carry "life". > 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'. Pirsig's is merely language and ABSTRACT? What has this term to do inside a metaphysics that has forsworn the S/O and all its offshoots among those the abstract/concrete one. > Now, lets start at the start( and this may be tedious for some but > 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. Right, language's original purpose was "binding of social patterns". > 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. Andrè, this is of outmost importance. That of "..reflecting on our activities ...etc." is the 4th. level's INTERNAL (somish) view of what intellectuality means, we must shift to MOQ's view where SOM has been reduced to the static intellectual level and "thinking" has nothing to do with it. It's like when we - from SOM - see a monkey (looking in a mirror) touching a color spot on its forehead must conclude that this is a budding intellect, while it merely is a display of intelligence (lot of that on the biological level too). The 4th level on the other hand is that of regarding existence as split into a subjective (abstract)and an objective (concrete) realm. > Language, by general agreement in the MoQ discussions is a social > pattern of value. It belongs at the social level. Yes, it is a social pattern, but like carbon is an inorganic pattern adapted by biology to carry bio. value (life) language is a social pattern adopted by intellect to carry its S/O value. > 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. BINGO! Only it does not merely makes sense of abstractions it makes sense of the abstract/concrete distinction. > 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. Yepp. the curse of the "thinking intellect" again. It will haunt the MOQ until the SOL is understood and accepted. > 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? Course not, as little as the Bible or Koran conveys 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!! Right you are: Pirsig worked out a metaphysics that can turns circles around anything previous conceived, but then the "mystic" got the best of him and he left his great project. > But this is not how to 'sell' the MoQ to your friends, family, > interested people ( or maybe it is?) For some this is manna from heaven, but there are thinkers like yourself, thank God. > 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 . Andrè you are on to it. If "those patterns" are discussing roses or parliamentary debates, they are simply social value employing intelligence. > 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 was subtle, but I agree if you by "that thinking" mean intelligence used for social purposes. What intelligence is and where it has its origin we may return to. > 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?) No, you are becoming a MOQist! > 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. "Informing social level thinking" in the sense of intellect's purpose is to control "society" you bet. What problems you see ... interesting. This is a far as I came in this "sitting", will comment the rest tomorrow. 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/
