----- Forwarded Message ----
From: X Acto <[email protected]>
To: Paul Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:42:53 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.
Mr. Turner,
It has been a desire for quite some time to speak with you on this very matter,
I feel I have a few pertanent ideas to forward on the subject of the
intellectual level.
Because, to say the ancient Egyptions did not have an intellectual level seems
a bit
limiting of the use of the term and the distinction. I feel that as each
society and culture
is distinct so is the intellectual level that emerges from it.
The Egyptians, the Maya and several other cultures which posessed the skills of
mathmatics
in astonomy and engineering, utilize some type of system of complex chains of
induction and deduction.
This much is certain. I have arguements prepared to support this.
The ear mark of the intellectual level, as Pirsig forwards, is the
Use of abstract symbols that have no correspondance with experience.
Western culture defines it's intellectual level by the use of analytic which is
based
on the axioms of grammar. Since Egyptian utilizes pictographs their use and
axioms of logic
do not make the same types of distinctions in terms of the use of grammar.
Therefore
Pirsig would not recognize intellect as defined by analylitic. Same for Chinese
or any
other pictographic language structure.
Since western culture defines intellect via analytic, it only makes sense to
posit the origins of
the western intellectual level with the birth of these definitions and axioms.
Thus the intellectual
level may only define itself in the terms it understands as it's defining
aspects.
I feel that if Moq is to transcend cultural boundaries it must acknowledge this
aspect else it
risks definitions which promote a type of cultural chauvanism in the view of
the intellectual
level.
This keeps the field of view more inclusive to the human condition and since
that is the only
condition we may accurately expereince it keeps the concept of the intellectual
from
infinite reduction and the risk of anthropromorphic concepts. It also leaves
room for
the possibility of other animal/alien or other societies to have their own
contextual intellectual level.
It seems limited and short sighted to deem any society that does not utilize
analytic in the
form that western culture defines it, as not having an intellectual level.
Sincerely,
Ron Kulp
________________________________
From: Paul Turner <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:22:06 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.
Hello all,
Hope you are all well. I took a look at the recent posts on MD and saw
that the SOL is still being discussed at length. In these posts I
noticed a little comment from Bo which I feel the need to correct (no
offence, Bo).
On Fri Feb 27 00:29:43 PST 2009 Bo wrote:
"Paul Turner was a real slugger, but after years of debate the last
argument made him write the said letter and after that he disappeared."
I first debated the SOL with Bo around June/July 2003. In September
2003 I received the "said letter" from Pirsig in response to a letter
sent by me in August 2003. I continued to debate the topic with Bo and
others until December 2005 before "disappearing" from the list. So this
letter, which I actually believe undermines as much as supports the SOL,
predates my leaving the list by over two years and had no bearing on my
decision to do so. The arguments I presented to Bo between 2003-2005,
which I still stand by today, are in the archives for all to see.
Over three years on I have no desire to pick up the debate and have
nothing to add to my arguments. However I have found some
correspondence with Pirsig from October 2005 restating his opinion on
the social/intellectual distinction which might be of interest.
"If one is looking for a precise point of division between social and
intellectual thought, it might be that intellectual language involves
long chains of consciously careful inductive and deductive thinking
whereas social thought does not. So, if one wants to say that Egyptians
were intellectual then one should show from their hieroglyphics just
where the long chains of consciously careful inductive and deductive
thinking are. I haven't seen this in what exposure I've had to the
ancient Egyptian culture.
What complicates all this discrimination between intellectual and social
thought are intellectual patterns that are no longer intellectually
valid but are sustained by the social traditions that they created long
ago. Religious beliefs are in this class. Classical physics is in this
class. I think much of the opposition to the MOQ falls in this class as
well.
Finally, there is something of a bootstrap problem about intellect
defining intellect. A definition is a kind of container and a container
that is supposed to contain itself makes me uneasy. In the language of
the buddhas, intellect is easily recognized and contained as the
illusion that quits upon enlightenment. And in the language of everyday
life I don't think anyone has a problem with the terms, "intellectual"
and "social." It's just that when intellect tries to describe intellect
itself with great precision a kind of endless thrashing around begins
because the intellectual level in trying to contain itself is always
lacking a container of the container.
An old engineering maxim says, "Good enough is best," meaning don't
over-design things. In the continuing design of the MOQ the present
common everyday understanding of these two terms seems "good enough," to
me or at least good enough until someone can answer your question better
than I have." (Pirsig to Turner, October 2005)
Best wishes
Paul
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/
