Hi Platt
Thanks for answering the question. You're absolutely correct - I don't
agree with you but at least it's good that we should try and find out if
our differences can be resolved. Unlikely as maybe, but definitely worth
a shot.
On 30/04/2010 03:07, Platt Holden wrote:
"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).
[Horse]
I disagree. Intellectual patterns constitute the Intellectual level. As
static patterns of value this is the only place where they fit in within
the MoQ.They are constituents of the same thing - Intellect. Thoughts
and ideas are intellectual patterns that are within the Intellectual
level. This also appears to be how Pirsig sees the situation. In
annotation 136 of Lila's Child he says:
"...an imprisoned criminal is no longer a threat to society and it
becomes arguably immoral to kill him because he is still capable of
thought."
I.e. social patterns should not destroy (a source of) intellectual
patterns. I haven't used the full quote as I am only showing what is
necessary for the immediate purposes of what we are discussing and would
prefer to leave any political implications alone for the moment.
Also in annotation 111 he says:
"Objects are biological patterns and inorganic patterns, not thoughts or
social patterns."
here contrasting Objects (biological patterns and inorganic patterns)
with Subjects (intellectual patterns [thoughts] and social patterns).
There are other instances where Pirsig makes similar references - can
you show me some where Pirsig makes any claim that is not in accordance
with this - i.e. that thoughts, concepts, ideas, intellect etc. are not
intellectual patterns and thus part of the intellectual level.
Alternatively, please show how and where thoughts, concepts, ideas,
intellect etc. (all static patterns) fit within another static level.
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.
[Horse]
But still thoughts, concepts, ideas, intellect etc. and thus part of an
Intellectual level. Where else would they fit?
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.
[Horse]
Precisely. The Intellectual level was in existence prior to SOM. SOM was
a new pattern of values that came into existence through intellectual
processes. It was also of higher value than previous intellectual
patterns but those other intellectual patterns did not cease to exist or
become social patterns. Other intellectual patterns came along later and
are competing for "space" within the Intellectual level. SOM is a
dominating or dominant pattern within the intellectual level but not the
only one.
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.
[Horse]
Not as such, I agree - but what Pirsig did was to create a metaphysics
centred on Quality and expand on other intellectual patterns and create
new ones. Effectively, he renamed, reconfigured and added to existing
patterns of value by creating a new way of looking at how we classify
the results of experience. That's what a metaphysics is, isn't it? Or at
least one way of looking at it. Either way, a metaphysics is still a
static pattern of intellectual values - regardless of what it refers to.
I know you won't find my answers satisfactory, but I hope you'll give me credit
for giving them a shot.
[Horse]
Absolutely. I was really pleased when the above dropped into my inbox -
not because I want to trade insults or score points but because I feel
it's important to try and get to the root of our disagreements. Many
thanks Platt.
Cheers
Horse
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
