On 7 Jul 2009 at 14:55, John Carl wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > If the English symbol "intellectual" means the ability to distinguish > > between other and self (objective from subjective) then the symbol > > applies to my cat UTOE and all other life forms. Even if they may not be > > self-aware, they act as if they know the difference between self and > > other. So I don't think that the symbol "intellectual" defines the value of > > the MOQ 4th level. Rather, what defines the MOQ 4th level is the > > VALUE OF SYMBOL MANIPULATION over the social level's value of > > conventional human thoughts, ideas and concepts including the S/O, > > mind/matter split. From different perspectives we arrive at the same > > conclusion -- the 4th level's value is NOT concepts, ideas or thoughts. > > > Good points in there Platt. I'm looking at your distinction between > intellectual and social and have a few wonderings:
Thank for responding, John. We've been kicking around how to best define the intellectual level ever since this site began over ten years ago. Despite many attempts, notably by Bo Skutvik, there has been little agreement. Pirsig himself left the question pretty much up in the air by assuming, as he later wrote: "In Lila I never defined the intellectual level of the MOQ since everyone who is up to reading Lila already knows what 'intellectual' means." (Lila's Child, Note 25) Having your fresh eyes on the subject may help settle our arguments, or at least move us toward that goal. > First, it occurs to me that the distinction between self and other is very > markedly a social - level value. Certainly before we can have any social > interaction at all, we must see ourselves and others in relation, therefore > the self-other dichotomy is the primary reality of the social level, is this > not true? Yes, that's certainly true. According to Pirsig, the social level as he envisioned it is limited to human beings, not social animals like ants and wolves. If you disagree with that limit as many here have, then the relationship of self/other would probably apply to the biological level as well. My cat UTOE would not last long if he couldn't tell the difference between himself and the bulldog down the street. But, let's take Pirsig at his word and confine the social level exclusively to humans. Then your observation is indisputable and arguments about whether the self/other distinction occurs at lower levels become irrelevant. > Second, communication occurs at the social level, but thinking about > communication occurs at the intellectual. That one-upmanship of abstraction > is the defined beginning of the intellectual level. Not sure abstraction in general marks the beginning of the intellectual level. Communication at the social level must have been partly abstract such as, "Let's talk." But, "Let's talk" in semantics is an example of directive language, or in grammar an example of the imperative mood. IMO, such abstractions about language are examples of the beginning of the intellectual level. Even the the idea "abstraction" is intellectual level. It's about language. When we started making symbols about other symbols, we started the intellectual level. > Still with me? Good. Now, some concepts, ideas and thoughts are > abstractions, but when you say they are not the level's value, you mean that > they are the 4th level's toys rather than it's goal? It's goal or value > being GOOD ideas, concepts and thoughts? > > If that's what you're saying, it makes a lot of sense to me. No, that's not what I'm saying. There are plenty of good ideas at the social level, like the invention of the spear and the wheel. But the beginnings of intellect occurred with the invention of writing and came into full flower with the invention of rhetoric, grammar, mathematics, logic, semantics, etc.-- those disciplines devoted to the use of symbols. That's my tentative theory anyway. (Another theory I proposed but got shot down was my attempt at renaming the highest level the individual level as as compared to the collective (social) level. But, it proved to be too politically incorrect for most contributors.) > > Yes, using symbols to reflect an assumed external reality is certainly > > part of intellect's symbol making repertoire. But since using symbols this > > way is such a conventional part of human thought I consider it a social > > level value rather than an intellectual level value. > Communication itself is a social value. Thinking about the quality of > communication is intellectual. Got you. I'm still there. It's not the quality of the communication that marks the intellectual. After all, the invention of the spear and wheel were high quality social ideas. It's thinking about thinking including low quality thinking (illogical) that marks the intellectual level. > > Remember that > > symbol manipulation (intellect) was created to serve the needs of > > society for food, shelter, clothing and to identify friends from enemies. > > To accomplish those goals, the symbolic subject/object division was as > > necessary for society's survival as it is today. > > > > To your other point about how using the symbol "ineffable" to describe > > DQ "screws up" the MOQ. "Ineffable" means beyond symbolic reflection > > or representation. I don't see how what is beyond the MOQ can "screw > > up" the MOQ any more than the symbol "aesthetic" can screw up a > > poem. > depends upon the quality of the poem, of course. Fer instance... > > There once was man from Cathetix, > > Who worked in sales for prosthetics > > He'd often beg > > for an arm and a leg > > Just to make you look un-aesthetic Is that high or low quality? > > As argued above, I consider the reality/concept split a social value. It is > > the basis of conventional thinking and is necessary for survival. What > > makes up the the intellectual level is symbol manipulation, represented > > primarily by mathematics, symbolic logic and computer "languages" that > > dominate today's scientific amoral methodology. By itself, the number 6 > > is no better or worse than the number 2. That's the problem of the > > intellectual level, not the S/O split which serves human survival needs > > well. > I thought James Carse's quote on the screw-up science made in converting a > methodology into a belief system as a defense against theism was very > interesting. I'd like to read his latest. > > So for me the bottom line is that the value of the intellectual level is > > not SOM but symbol manipulation. But in attaining that value, humanity > > lost its soul. "The world was no doubt in better shape intellectually and > > technologically but despite that, somehow, the "quality" of it was not > > good. There was no way you could say why this quality was no good. > > You just felt it." (Lila, 22) > > The MOQ brings back quality to modern life > Theoretically, anyway. Yes. The MOQ tries to show why there is more to life and living than black holes, salivating dogs, brain scans and chaos theory. Science, using its mastery of symbols, invented digital TV, but are the programs any better? 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/
