On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Platt > > I think the problem here is a consequence of the idea that the Intellectual > level is SOM. > Why is it such a problem to see that words on a piece of paper or dots on a > screen are not the same as the intellectual process of thinking. Is this so > different to the idea that the music a composer imagines is not the same as > musical notation? > The only way we know others thoughts are through the process of expression > in some form other than the thoughts themselves (intellectual patterns of > value) but we know thoughts exist because we experience our own thoughts as > intellectual patterns of value. > > I would still appreciate your reply relating to my 4th and 5th comments > regarding the existence of Intellectual patterns prior to the emergence of > SOM because there is a serious anomaly going on here. > If SOM is the entirety of the Intellectual level and SOM didn't exist until > approximately 500BC what was Pirsig talking about when he mentions the > Intellect: > > > "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" > > If intellectual patterns of value didn't exist prior to SOM (SOM as the > entirety of the Intellectual level) as you seem to be saying then how did > SOM create the Intellectual level? > > This question needs to be answered. > > Horse Your wish is my command. Again, you conflate intellectual patterns of value with the intellectual level. The two are separate concepts (thoughts, ideas). Intellectual patterns of value is a broad concept that includes all sorts of ideas other than SOM that were used to find food, detect danger and defeat enemies, most of them having to with the activities of various Gods and spirits. So intellectual (thought) patterns certainly did exist prior to SOM which wasn't a prominent concept until the ancient Greeks came up with the idea. As for your final question, SOM didn't create the intellectual level. A man named Pirsig did. Before him there was no "intellectual level" as such. I know you won't find my answers satisfactory, but I hope you'll give me credit for giving them a shot. Best regards, Platt > > > > > On 30/04/2010 00:22, Platt Holden wrote: > >> Hi Horse, >> >> Since we have a basic disagreement on the meanings of thinking, >> intelligence, intellect and intellectual level as presented in the MOQ, I >> don't see how we can reconcile our views. For example, in your second >> comment where you state that thought is something other than its >> expression, >> I disagree. The only way we know thought exists at all is by its >> expression. >> Suffice it to say I respect your views and appreciate as always the >> opportunity you give me and other participants to argue here about >> Pirsig's >> ideas. That he has given us so much to "think" and argue about is a >> testament to his contribution to a better world. Whether that goal will be >> realized is something you and I will probably never know. But, if >> debating >> these issues helps, we will have done something positive -- I think. :-). >> >> Best regards, >> Platt * * >> >> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> 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 >> >> >> > > -- > > 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 > 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
