>[Arlo] > This is supported by the MOQ's theory that intellect emerges out >of society and NOT biology.
Technically I don't think this is Pirsig's position. The "intellectual level" emerges out of the social. The "intellect" which Pirsig claims can be "just thought about anything" he doesn't seem to think of is an important emergent quality. At least not important enough for a level. Which is why I think he somehow has upper two levels wrong. And it all boils down to these two quotes: >[Pirsig-PT Letter] > Another subtler confusion exists between the word, "intellect," that can mean > thought about anything and the word, "intellectual," where abstract thought > itself is of primary importance. Thus, though it may be assumed that the > Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had intellect, it can be doubted that theirs > was an intellectual culture........ > Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as biological and inorganic > patterns are designated with a sign that stands for them and these signs are > manipulated independently of the patterns they stand for. "Intellect" can then > be defined very loosely as the level of independently manipulable signs. > Grammar, logic and mathematics can be described as the rules of this sign > manipulation. Pirsig limits the social level to humans, So what is the emergent quality that separates social animals from social humans? Almost all branches of science are circling around some emergent quality in human brain function(s). While these qualities may have some relationship with animal (biological) social behavior the question ultimately boils down to whether you interpret "intellect" as a biological quality or not. If you do everything works as laid out in the MoQ. If on the other hand you believe that the hugh increase in human ability for "abstract thought" is THE difference that makes the difference between animal and human social behavior and actions, and that it is an emergent quality every bit as significant as the jump between inorganic and biological, then something is not correct in RMP's theory. I personally believe the case for the latter is stronger. RMP confuses the first historical indications of the intellect trying to dominate a culture in Classic Greece with the emergence of the intellectual level which actually occurred thousands of years prior to that time. Dave 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
