Hello Andrè
Back to your post of 17 Oct. I reached this far:
> 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.
I agreed most profoundly that books, language or thinking isn't
intellect. This is the the impasse that so many have worked
themselves into On this point Pirsig is clear (the PT letter again)
But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies
the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is
conspicuously absent. The world is ruled by Gods who follow
social and biological patterns and nothing else.
The Bible is a book, but it's not conveying intellectual value, that's for
sure.
> 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).
The "greed" term may be a bit ambiguous. Many strive after money or
political power for celebrity reasons, this is social (SLT).
> 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.
The "isms" as academical studies are intellect, but the actual financial
transactions and/or political manoeuvres may be SLT (social level
"thinking")
> 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.
Here however I object. These patterns are clearly intellect overlaying
social patterns, the latter are best displayed in pre-intellect times or
not-yet-intellect cultures - the Muslim f.ex. - where military juntas,
sovereign kings, dictators rule and Sharia law is the judicial
fundament.
> I think that the concept of SLT may assist in 'separating' the levels
> as well as clarifying them.
Know what Andrè, I think "thinking" is useless as a description of what
takes place at the social and intellectual levels. It's the "fallout" of
intellect" point. After the 4th. level's breakthrough (as SOM) it deemed
reality split into a mind (thinking) and a matter (non-thinking) realm, but
the MOQ abolishes thinking/non-thinking as valid .... outside intellect
according to the SOL.
This is what Pirsig didn't "observe" himself in his "how MOQ encases
SOM" procedure where the two lower levels=objective, the two upper=
subjective. It's plain that the sole valid "encasement" is SOM as the
intellectual level. Thus there's no "thinking" anywhere not even at
intellect, except as intellect's dichotomy.
In my view the following happened: As the neural network called brain
grew (there are several layers of it but never mind) the capacity for
storing experience as memory (RAM) grew and also the capacity for
recalling portions of it in "caches" where it can be replayed and re-
arranged in logical ways: "if I do this, this will happen" ...etc. This is
something that began deep inside the biological level and is called
intelligence. Animals displays advanced such, not by way of language
but images, perhaps odors, sound ... whatever. With the human brain
it reached some critical point that spawned the social development.
When language arrived the said manipulation took on a verbal form
and it's this silent language that the intellectual level - when it arrived -
declared a subjective realm eternally different from the external
objective world.
> 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.
Yes, the said "encasement procedure" where he speaks of an outer
external and an inner mental realm reintroduces SOM.
> 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!
Amen!
> 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!
True, the MOQ could only emerge from the intellectual (S/O) level.
> The strenght of the MoQ is that it has placed itself at the level of
> "static intellectual pattern of value".
Objections! The intellectual level is a MOQ sub-set, thus the MOQ
can't be an intellectual sub-set. The MOQ is the meta-physical level of
the MOQ (no static 5th. level though).
> 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...".
He continued that "..the intelligence of the cells sees no reason to die",
and this is spot on. The levels from biology upwards employ the said
(originally biological) intelligence for own purpose.
> 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)??
His deliberations on the levels compared to computer
software/hardware is a fertile ground for discussion, but it strangely
enough skips the social reality which is the key.
> 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 learnd
> 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
This is the least "rubbish" I've encountered since this discussion
began. But don't let it spoil your sleep.
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/
