Hi Steve, [Steve] > I don't have your post with me, but I try to address what I remember about > it. > > Marsha quoted the whole paragraph which is important because the last > sentence is key: > > "What had happened since the end of World War I was that the > intellectual > level had entered the picture and had taken over everything. It was > this > intellectual level that was screwing everything up. The question of > whether promiscuity is moral had been resolved from prehistoric times to > the end of the Victorian era, but suddenly everything was upended by > this > new intellectual supremacy that said sexual promiscuity is neither moral > nor immoral, it is just amoral human behavior."
Yes. The SOM intellectual level (not pattern) is what Pirsig is talking about here -- the level that became "supreme" over the social level, upsetting Rigel and causing him to dump on Pirsig. > What Pirsig is describing is not intellect itself but rather the SOM > view of intellect. Specifically it is the intellectual pattern that > says that intellectual patterns are amoral that is screwing everything > up. It is Rigel's rather than Pirsig's view of intellect. This becomes > even more clear as we continue: When Pirsig says "the intellectual level" I believe him. If he had meant "intellectual patterns" he would have said so. Rigel has no view of intellect: his view is strictly social level. > "That may have been why Rigel was so angry back in Kingston. He thought > Lila was immoral because she'd broken up a family and destroyed a man's > position in the social community-a biological pattern of quality, sex, > had > destroyed a social pattern of quality, a family and a job. What made > Rigel > mad was that into this scene come intellectuals like Phædrus who say > it's > unintelligent to repress biological drives. You must decide these > matters > on the basis of reason, not on the basis of social codes. > > But if Rigel identified Phædrus with this intellect-vs.-society code and > the social upheavals it has produced, he certainly picked on the wrong > person. The Metaphysics of Quality uproots the intellectual source of > this > confusion, the doctrine that says, "Science is not concerned with > values. > Science is concerned only with facts." > > In a subject-object metaphysics this platitude is unassailable, but the > Metaphysics of Quality asks: which values is science unconcerned with? > Gravitation is an inorganic pattern of values. Is science unconcerned? > Truth is an intellectual pattern of values. Is science unconcerned?" > Clearly Pirsig is indeed talking about patterns of values when he > wants to get specific, and he specifically mentions them here. He is > saying that what we need is for the intellectual pattern that says > that truth is a species of good to win out over the intellectual > pattern that says that intellect is amoral. This is ZAMM's pursuit of > the Ghost of Reason or the root of the problem or the dark side of > SOM. Clearly Pirsig is laying the groundwork for his MOQ wherein values are not limited to Rigel-like social conventions or science-like amorality, but are the whole thing. The MOQ is more than just another intellectual pattern because at its root is direct experience prior to intellect. Like Andre, I consider the MOQ a higher, aesthetic level presenting a broader understanding of reality than the intellectual level. > Certainly many of our common intellectual patterns such as the one I > just described are based on SOM assumptions, but that does not mean > that ALL intellectual patterns are based on SOM assumptions or that > SOM is what intellect is (the S/O aggregate or whatever Bo says). That > would simply be a category error. Intellect describes a sort of > pattern of value recognized as the manupulation of abstract symbols > that stand for patterns of experience. The intellectual level is the > collection of all such patterns. Like I said, unless the intellectual level is SOM, the trance state of today's "intellectuals," Pirsig's analysis of our cultural problems collapses. Then the MOQ would be a philosophic non-starter. Best. Platt 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/
