Mary, Do you have a particular definition for ART that puts it into the Intellectual Level, or does all art all through the ages fall into that level?
Marsha On Apr 4, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Mary wrote: > Hello again, > >> Question 1: What is the Intellectual Level, and specifically, what >> makes it different from the Social Level? > > Pirsig was nothing if not subtle. Hehehe! True, he went on for two books > ranting and railing against everything from World War I, the Hippies, > Victorians, and people with more money than brains who could afford to buy > elegantly engineered mechanical equipment without the slightest appreciation > for how it works. But on one point he was pretty muddy, leaving it to the > reader to have the pleasure of working out the difference between the > levels. All of them are up for grabs and have been hotly debated. > > The key. As the teacher says to her class right before the test, "If you > don't remember anything else out of this class, remember this." The thing > that makes the whole construct of the MoQ WORK is the idea that sets of > patterns only achieve the status of a Level when they cease to support the > level they are in and go off to meet ends of their own. Brilliant! > > So how does that tell us what the Intellectual Level is? > > We could start by saying what it is not. > > Is it thinking itself? The act of having thoughts. Thoughts are used to > enhance and support the Biological and Social AND Intellectual Levels. > Doesn't seem to meet the criteria unless you can say that thinking itself is > now going off to meet ends of its own. Maybe it is, but hasn't it always? > If the levels evolved one from the other in the order presented, then you'd > be hard pressed to argue that "thinking itself" is the Intellectual Level. > We've been doing it all along. Maybe it has more to do with a way of > thinking. > > Is it Subject-Object Logic? A pretty broad term that demands discreteness > (see my last post). Every living thing with enough brain cells for > self-awareness views itself as discrete; but isn't Subject-Object Logic more > involved than that? At the Biological Level it enables self-preservation, > at the Social Level we develop "relationships" between our"selves" and our > society, and more relationships between our"selves" and our God(s), > our"selves" and our loved ones, neighbors, friends, co-workers, and our > money. But what about at the Intellectual Level? > > Subject-Object Logic is who we are as biological beings. Way back in the > Biological Level, something had to happen to ensure the survival of life. > If you are an organism in the mud and you fail to recognize your own > uniqueness - if you fail to see that you are discrete from everything else > around you - then why would you bother to take action to ensure your own > survival? What difference would survival make if you believed yourself to > be one with the Universe? Whether you are in this form or that matters not > because it's all one big Universe - which no doubt is unfolding as it > should. Without the concept of discreteness, followed closely by the > concept of ego (valuing your discreteness), the experiment known as Biology > would have failed miserably. Everything would die because nothing would see > any particular value in living. Discreteness is key. > > As evolution increased in complexity, so too did brain function. Eventually > Subject-Object Logic achieved a level of complexity so great that it outgrew > its original purpose as a means of perpetuating individual life - discretion > - and though all those early mechanisms for survival were still there, it > began to also consider cooperation as a survival technique. Not to sound > too Lamarckian, but it seems clear that some sort of mechanism must exist > that encourages learned cooperative behavior in early members of a species > to morph into instinctive cooperative behavior later on. But I digress. > You can see how biology values Subject-Object Logic, and how that evolved > into cooperative social arrangements. I think it's clear that at a certain > point Subject-Object Logic took off in pursuit of ends of its own, which we > can call the start of the Social Level. > > Society is built on discreteness. The idea that we are unique individuals > who come together to achieve common goals that may or may not support > biological survival. To argue that this differs in the East is a fallacy. > They too are descended from the same organisms in the mud as we and do not > have different brain wiring than ours. The teachings of Buddha did not > arise from the Biological Level, but were a reaction - an extremely > insightful reaction - to the fundamental belief in discreteness that exists > in all people everywhere. If everyone in the East innately "gets" the idea > that we are all one, all "Quality", then why did the Buddha have to suffer > so much to convince people? Why doesn't everybody over there agree? Why > don't we? But again I digress. > > What muddies the water between the Social Level and the Intellectual is the > same thing that muddies it between the Social and the Biological; namely > that all three exist thanks to Subject-Object Logic. It is the engine of > change, or advancement, and I would argue that no level beyond the Inorganic > would exist without it. We are immersed in it and we owe it a great debt, > but is it right? Just because it is fundamental to biological survival, > does it follow that that's the way the Universe really is? > > What distinguishes the Intellectual from the Social? What IS the > Intellectual Level? Isn't it just a grandiose acting out of ever higher > constructs of Society? No. Society is an elaborate construction based on > the concept of cooperation over discreteness. Both of which originated in > the Biological to enhance survival. The Social Level came into its own when > it ceased to view cooperation as a means of survival and began to view it as > a way to achieve other sorts of things. When humanity started gilding the > lily of cooperation with rules that had no direct relationship to enhancing > survival, then the Social Level was born. All you have to do is use the > same analogy for the Intellectual Level. > > The Intellectual Level is the "Gee Whiz"! If the Social Level made up > things like religion to calm and control the masses based on nothing more > concrete than that an authority figure said so, then the Intellectual Level > is the antithesis of that. To religion the Intellectual Level says, "I > don't care that religion serves a stabilizing, calming influence on society, > you have to prove it before I will buy it." Or, here's another, "I don't > care that building nuclear weapons is destructive, destabilizing, and may > cause the end of us all, we have figured out how to do it, and it's cool!" > > Not to belabor the point, but do you see that the Intellectual Level is the > logical extension of what happens when you take the seed concept, > discreteness in the form of Subject-Object Logic so necessary to biology, > layer cooperation in the form of the Social Level over that - which enables > the leisure to think about more than just staying alive - THEN abandon the > controls instituted by the Social Level? You get Subject-Object > Metaphysics. You get Subject-Object Science. You get algebra, computer > programs, nuclear weapons. You get ART. > > Subject-Object Logic first served the Biological, then the Social, and now > has taken off on its own where it has become an entity unto itself. You > could continue to call it "Subject-Object Logic", but a more precise term > would be "Subject-Object Metaphysics" as that more distinctly defines the > difference between all thinking and that based on specific premises. > > When a set of static patterns serves as its own master it is by definition > its own level. > > Another idea... > > A Metaphysics represents a belief system. I would like to explore the > difference between belief and instinct. How are instincts acquired? Did > they start out as beliefs? Why do we hold so strongly to our beliefs? Is > there a mechanism for turning long-held and strongly felt belief into > instinct? > > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
