Horse.
You wrote to Platt:
> I think the problem here is a consequence of the idea that the
> Intellectual level is SOM.
The idea that the intellectual level is SOM was Phaedrus original
revolutionary vision that the author of LILA (for some inscrutable
reason) didn't quite follow up, thereby creating the quandary that has
haunted the MOQ ever since.
> 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.
I don't know, but guess it's the "novel/its electronic form" parable in
LILA which is behind your above
And what amazed him most of all was how one could spend
all of eternity probing the electrical patterns of that computer
with an oscilloscope and never find that novel.
At least this was to demonstrate the incompatibility between the
levels, but thinking is not intellect, but intellect surely employs thinking
(intelligence) lots of thinking at the social and biological levels. Try to
the understand the following: The MOQ also employs intelligence and
its the first act in office is to unmask intellect's (as-SOM) hoax that
thinking = intellect and that the universal divide is between
OBJECTIVE ".. words on a piece of paper" and the SUBJECTIVE "..
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.
These two realms - subjective tones in composer's mind and objective
notes on paper is intellect's value - the highest static such - and the old
metaphysical fundament, but the new fundament is Dynamic/Static
Quality.
> 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"
This is the Pirsig who messed up Phaedrus original insight of SOM
being INTELLECT and gave you enough material for procrastinating,
but it's plain that he is talking about intelligence. Besides he has
"recanted" this in the Paul Turner letter, but that seems to be
anathema.
> 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?
The intellectual level emerged out of the social level and the latter is
as much a thinking level as the former because its building block is the
big-brained human (biological) organism.
Bodvar
> 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
