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/
