Steve to Andre and Krimel: I think Krimel has it right. According to Pirsig, intellectual patterns date back to the beginning of history:
LC annotation 45. After the beginning of history inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns are found existing together in the same person. I think the conflicts mentioned here are intellectual conflicts in which one side clings to an intellectual justification of existing social patterns and the other side intellectually opposes the existing social patterns. A social pattern which would be unaware of the next higher level would be found among prehistoric people and the higher primates when they exhibit social learning that is not genetically hard-wired but yet is not symbolic. Andre: Hi Steve (thanks for the reference) and Krimel: If Pirsig suggests that intellectual patterns are found existing after the beginning of history ( as I understand this; the time when people began to record things in writing?...most of which evidence has not survived of course) then who am I to argue? If this is the MoQ understanding then so be it...and it does open up a different understanding for me (which is great!). The cave paintings in the south of France for example (earlier mentioned here) are not simply paintings of animals. Keeping in mind Campbell's 'Masks of God, these were depictions of rituals, of gods ( in the form of for. ex. an ox, cow, lion or bison). We are witnessing the very first creations, through paintings, of the mythos. These rituals gave expression to the ideas people had about the world around (and above) them. I am not sure of whether to call this 'symbolic'. I think it is, because the rituals were intended to be an actual enactment of how they, immediately apprehended (to use Northrop's expression) the universe. However, through these ritual displays (art) they did symbolise their understanding of the workings of the entire universe. (as below-so above, as above-so below) Jumping to ZMM...the mythos over logos...Chris asking Phaedrus if he believes in ghosts. Phaedrus says that ghosts do not exist because they are 'unscientific'. But throughout ZMM Phaedrus keeps on 'checking' this for himself. This mythos/logos dichotomy keeps on hunting him (in some of the dream sequences). Phaedrus' line of thinking...the mythos giving rise to logos which eventually becomes part of the mythos again in an ever evolving progression. It seems to me that Bodvar strongly identifies with intellect being the logos (and the mythos, social) and that this intellect has won out over the mythos (which, according to this [MoQ] reasoning it must, because it is a higher level of evolution). This view has been challenged and ridiculed for longer than a decade on this Discuss and remains so. It appears that Pirsig challenges this as well in this annotation 45. Not wanting to put too fine a point on it but the 4th level of the MoQ is the intellectual level...not the intellect level. There remains much confusion (as Bodvar argues... about) the difference between intellectualising and intellect.... . I am not convinced how useful this distinction is... though I do find the S/O distinction useful as an intellectual PoV. For me, the rigorous distinction presupposes the destruction of the mythos as it is incompatible with the logos ( which I interpret as the S/O distinction...correct me if I am wrong please). The mythos over logos remains a central theme in ZMM. A mind divided agains itself, and repeated in LILA...the peyote experience with the Indians. Both the mythos and the logos are present as static PoV's within the totality of our own static PoV's. ( come to mind is Carl Jung with his arch-types...'collectively shared memories' [ whether one is aware of them or not] (cringe goes Bodvar!!!). Phaedrus makes it very explicit that with Aristotle our scientific understanding of reality was born. A powerfully argued logos designed to overthrow the mythos.... But the mythos has never been overthrown. It is still with us ( and perhaps in the not too distant future Aristotle will become part of this 'realm')... in the form of rituals and customs that we commonly name culture. If culture is the social/ intellectual level then this is perhaps the battle ground...the intersection where the code of the moral battle (social/ intellectual) is taking place.But it is a bit more complex than this because what this shows is that it is not only a battle between levels but also a battle at the same level...namely the intellectual level. If the mythos is an intellectual PoV and if S/O is an intellectual PoV then you have a mind divided against itself. The MoQ can be seen as an attempt at reconcilliation and integration. Pirsig has argued in LILA that a 'scientific' understanding of reality is just as much 'grounded' in the social level as the 'mythological' understanding is. This reconcilliation and integration has occurred through a shift in assumptions upon which each is based ( myth and the gods, science and SOM). The shift is of course that Quality/ Value is the monism and the source of experience. Subjects and objects disappear, gods disappear. Just as different conflicts of value can be resolved at the same level, so can this one: at the cultural level. I won't bore you any further but would really appreciate (constructive) criticism. This will help me with all facets of the MoQ. Regards Andre 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/
