Hi Platt
On 29/04/2010 21:09, Platt Holden wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's the quote from Lila:
"The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect and
society,
subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of them in a larger
system of
understanding. Objects are inorganic and biological values; subjects are
social and intellectual
values. They are not two mysterious universes that go floating around in
some subject-object
dream that allows them no real contact with one another. They have a
matter-of-fact
evolutionary relationship. That evolutionary relationship is also a moral
one.
Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that intellect
has functions that
pre-date science and philosophy. The intellect’s evolutionary purpose has
never been to discover
an ultimate meaning of the universe. That is a relatively recent fad. Its
historical purpose has
been to help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies. It can
do this well or poorly,
depending on the concepts it invents for this purpose."
[Lila. Chap24]
Unfortunately, it looks like you've got it wrong Platt because this says
nothing about "thinking" being a biological function. What he says is that
intellect (thinking) pre-dates science and philosophy.
You conflated intellect with thinking and omitted Pirsig's key phrase,
"concepts it invents." Inventing concepts, not dividing the world into
subjects and objects, is thinking.
[Horse]
The invention of concepts is an intellectual activity as Pirsig shows
above - i.e. part of the intellectual level so conflating thinking and
intellect is the correct thing to do. The "concepts it invents" where
"it" is the intellect or thinking and part of the intellectual level.
He also says that inorganic and biological patterns are objects ("Objects
are inorganic and biological values") so how can thinking be an object as
you seem to believe? Can you poke it cook it or whatever else you might do
with a lump of material stuff?
Thinking has biological value for humans. Without thinking the human
organism cannot survive. You can see it, hear it and manipulate it. I don''t
think you can taste it, however.
[Horse]
I'm sorry! "Thinking has Biological Value"?! Now whose conflating. What
you think about is neither here nor there. Thoughts may be influenced
by other thoughts or influenced by inorganic, biological and social
patterns but you cannot see another persons thoughts and, unless you are
telepathic you cannot hear another persons thoughts. You can express a
thought in language or write a thought down but that is not the thought
itself - it is an expression of the thought.
Also the biological human organism can survive without thinking if the
biological functions are continued as in the case of "brain dead" humans.
Pirsig says quite plainly that thinkings historical purpose was to "...help
a society find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies." and that it
(Thinking/Intellect/Intelligence) is part of the evolutionary process of the
MoQ.
Again you assume (thinking/intellect/intelligence) are all the same. You
conflate what is at issue.
[Horse]
No - I'm saying that they are all part and parcel of the same thing -
Intellectual patterns of value. The Intellectual level is about thinking
as Pirsig says. Intellect, intelligence and thinking are part of the
intellectual level.
That it was prior to intellectual patterns breaking free from domination by
social patterns does not mean that it was not in itself a separate level
prior to the emergence of science and philosophy when it finally started to
break free from the domination of social patterns.
Intellect was a separate level before it broke free from the social level? A
level within a level? Now you're really going off the deep end.
[Horse]
Are you saying that prior to around 500BC there were no intellectual
patterns of value? Because _that_ is really what would really be going
off the deep end. Intellectual patterns of value constitute the
intellectual level, so either you are saying that there were no
intellectual patterns of value prior to this time and no intellectual
level or you have to admit that there were and that the intellectual
level was very much in existence. If you have intellectual patterns of
value you have an intellectual level. Intellectual patterns of value are
not inorganic, biological or social patterns of value.
This also undermines your and Bo's idea that SOM is the Intellectual level
(what you and Bo would see as science and philosophy etc.) because it
existed prior to these as is pointed out in the above section of Lila -
"....intellect has functions that
pre-date science and philosophy [SOM]". How obvious is that?
So how can SOM be the Intellectual level when intellect, intelligence,
thinking etc. all existed before these were around?????
So how come Pirsig said, "It was this intellectual level that was screwing
everything up?"
How comes Pirsig has said repeatedly that SOM is not the Intellectual
level. The above section shows why this is so but you seem unable to
accept that part of what he is saying. Intellectual patterns of value
existed prior to SOM so the intellectual level cannot be SOM. How on
earth could it be when intellectual patterns of value and the
intellectual level existed long before SOM existed.
If you disagree with this then you have to say that SOM created the
intellectual level. Please explain how this is so.
This is one of the many reasons why SOM as the Intellectual level makes no
sense and why both you and Bo have got it so completely wrong as Pirsig has
stated on numerous occasions.
As far as I can see, your motives for supporting Bo's interpretation are
political not metaphysical, as shown by the last sentence in your post and
Bo's motives are egotistical shown by the way he tries to convince others
that Pirsig, the originator of the MoQ, is incapable of understanding his
own work.
And your motives are what? To be the ultimate authority on the MOQ?
No. But my motives are not to undermine the MoQ by repeatedly ignoring
what is not only obvious but has been expressly rejected by Robert
Pirsig who, one would imagine, knows quite a lot about the MoQ. Or
perhaps I'm being overly presumptuous in that belief and really it's you
and Bo who are the real MoQ authorities.
My motive is to apply the principles of the MOQ to current events. Otherwise,
it's just an academic exercise which seems to be the purpose of many here.
Well, if ignoring anything that doesn't fit in with what you want to see
or hear and undermining the MoQ is applying the principles of the MoQ
then you're going about it the right way. Odd way to do it though.
Good to talk with you
Horse
--
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an
attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine
in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what
a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson
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
