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." > > Platt: > > 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. > > Steve: > I never said that the intellectual level is a pattern, rather it is a > type of pattern.
A bit of miscommunication here. I put in (not pattern) to emphasize that Pirsig in the above paragraph says specifically the "intellectual level," not as you might have preferred him to say, "an intellectual level of patterns." When he went on to say that this intellectual level was screwing everything up, what else besides SOM do you suppose he had in mind? > I know that you view the levels as types of people rather than types > of patterns. This is a misconception. Sometimes I view the levels as types of people, like Pirsig does. But not always. My cat is strictly biological level. >Though the levels help us to > understand people by understadning what pattern dominate diferent > people, if you do a search for "intellectual level" in Lila, you will > never see Pirsig refer to someone as "being on the intellectual > level"--a phrase that is used regularly in this forum. You will find plenty of places in Lila where Pirsig refers to "intellectuals,." i.e., people dominated by SOM. >What you will > find is the frequent use of the phrase "intellectual level of > evolution" and references to patterns as in the following: > > "But what the larger intellectual structure of the > Metaphysics of Quality makes clear is that this political battle of > science > to free itself from domination by social moral codes was in fact a moral > battle! It was the battle of a higher, intellectual level of evolution > to > keep itself from being devoured by a lower, social level of evolution. > Once this political battle is resolved, the Metaphysics of Quality can > then > go back and re-ask the question, "Just exactly how independent is > science, > in fact, from society?" The answer it gives is, "not at all." A > science > in which social patterns are of no account is as unreal and absurd as a > society in which biological patterns are of no account. It's an > impossibility." > > and this: > > "Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was a historically shattering > declaration of independence of the intellectual level of evolution from > the > social level of evolution..." > > as well as this: > "Today we are living in an intellectual and technological paradise and a > moral and social nightmare because the intellectual level of evolution, > in > its struggle to become free of the social level, has ignored the social > level's role in keeping the biological level under control. > Intellectuals > have failed to understand the ocean of biological quality that is > constantly being suppressed by social order." Agree. Levels of moral evolution is a major theme of the MOQ. But note how Pirsig blasts the intellectual level (not an intellectual level of patterns) for ignoring the social level's role. Isn't it amoral SOM that fails to understand the ocean of biological quality? I think so. Also note his reference to "intellectuals." > Obviously, "levels of evolution" refer to patterns of value as I'm, > sure you recall Pirsig taking great pains to reinterpret evolution as > the migration of static patterns of value toward dynamic quality. If > that connection is too loose for you, consider that he also uses the > phrase "intellectual level of patterns" to explicitly state that the > levels refer to types of patterns: > > "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived. > The intellectual level of patterns, in the historic process of freeing > itself from its parent social level, namely the church, has tended to > invent a myth of independence from the social level for its own benefit. > Science and reason, this myth goes, come only from the objective world, > never from the social world." > > I think we wouls all gain much clarity in communication and > understanding if we were careful to always use "of patterns" when > referring to levels since that is what Pirsig means by the term. Go > back to where Pirsig first introduces the idea to see what he actually > means and that he actually is talking about types of patterns when > using the term "level": > > "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided > into > four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns > and > intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If > you > construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, Biological, Social > and > Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," that is. Only Dynamic > Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent... > > This classification of patterns is not very original, but the > Metaphysics > of Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual. It says they > are not continuous. They are discrete. They have very little to do > with > one another. Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is > not > an extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level > can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, > controlling it where possible for its own purposes." I think using "intellectual level of patterns" everywhere at all times instead of "intellectual level" isn't necessary for understanding the MOQ. Obviously, Pirsig uses both. > Of course, you and Bo hope to lay your own claim to the MOQ with Bo's > SOLAQI and your Individual level, so perhaps you are not all that > interested in what Pirisg is actually saying. Rather I would say we have honest differences of interpretation of what Pirsig is actually saying. Neither of us pretend to speak for him. I'm assume you don't either. > Steve: > >> 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: > > Platt: > > When Pirsig says "the intellectual level" I believe him. If he had > meant > > "intellectual patterns" he would have said so. > Steve: > As we see above, that is what he means and he did say so. Not in the context I originally cited. Either he was referring to SOM as the intellectual level in that context or his explanation of the "social deterioration of America" is way off base. > He has also > specifically refuted Bo's SOLAQI in Lila's Chld and in subsequent > letters. I don't have my copy of LC with me, and maybe someone else > can dig up the quotes, but he specifically addresses this idea that > the intellectual level is equivalent to SOM. Agree. He did try to further explain what he considered to be the intellectual level, calling it, among other things, the same as mind. He also said at the end of a lengthy exposition on the subject that we shouldn't take what he said as a "Papal Bull." I take him at his word. (skip) > Platt: > >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. > > Steve: > I agree that the MOQ is not JUST another intellectual pattern, but it > is still an intellectual pattern. Again, Pirsig even says as much. There's the rub. To think of the MOQ as an intellectual pattern is to miss its "essence." What do you think the MOQ is besides an intellectual pattern? > Steve: > >> 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. > > Platt: > > 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. > > MOQ is a place holder for "Pirsig's philosophy." You are basicallly > saying that Pirsig is wrong about what his philosophy is. Rather, I don't agree that all of what you say about Pirsig's philosophy is right. 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/
