Hi Guys, This dialogue has got my head spinning, don't understand most of it. With no intention of changing the subject, I wanted to respond on the following part by John:
[John] But if there is more to intellect than the classical definition of intellect. If intellect, as I claim, includes romantic aspect as well as the classical, includes and is actually led by Art, as an intellectual expression... [Mark again] This is an interesting subject that has been bandied about in the forum before. The classical and romantic is of course a key topic of ZMM. Art preceding science is speculated and several good books have been written about it. I have a fondness for Art and Physics by Leonard Shlain (may he rest in peace) since I went to a lecture of his in the Bay Area and talked with him a bit afterwards. There is also of course a notion that much of what physics is describing with math was preceded by Buddhism and other primary philosophies. No doubt music has an intellectual equivalent. It would seem that since all of this comes from the human brain, which hasn't changed much over the years, it stands to reason that its expression is similar in a variety of fields and such expression spans many years. One way I try to explain this is from the point of view of a neurochemist. Years ago I spent some time mapping the CNS of rats, specifically in terms of serotonin receptors, I wrote a chapter in some book about the state of the art at that time. Much has progressed since then in terms of specifics. I remember dissecting human brains in medical classes, and it is a pretty amazing and diverse organ. I left that field, but learned what I wanted to know from a philosophical basis. So, to my point. We often regard ourselves as living out of our brains. In fact, the "I", (that part which seems to disappear during sleep), is often regarded as our real selves. It can be speculated that the "I" resides mainly in the cortex, and complex thought more in the frontal cortex. Of course this is a simplification since there are connecting pathways all over the place. In fact it is these pathways to all parts of the brain that is intriguing. It seems that only a part of the brain is involved in intellectual thought, but obviously it is being fed and modulated from all over. So underneath that consciousness is what is termed the subconscious which has a mind of its own (if you will). It is sorting out problems and rectifying our view of reality. Beneath that could be considered the primitive brain with the limbic system and all, and finally the brain stem. The classification itself is not important in this post, and I am rusty here, so don't quote me on that. So, what we hold in active thought is a refined portion of what is going on; and there is a lot else going on which affects the active thought, even when we are asleep. I would say that most of our thinking is not at the conscious level but outside of it. The intellect therefore is not that simple, and certainly not measurable at this time. Most insights and revelations may occur outside of our active thinking. This could be where the Eureka comes from. There is lots and lots of ruminating going on behind the scenes. That part of the brain which is being used for active concentrated thought does so for the purposes of communication (in my opinion). Thus we believe we think in words. What is perhaps really going on is wordless until the final stage. The "I" is formed as a mirror. And so we get to the classical and romantic as concepts. Linear thinking and lateral thinking, or wordy thinking and symbolic thinking, whatever, RMP describes it well. Many believe that the two hemispheres have different functions in this regard, and much has been written about this. In terms of the final thought itself, they are not that different since it is refined for expression, but how that thought is formed may be very different. If intellectual thought is a conglomeration of the deeper regions, and modern art, and music, are too, then it stands to reason that they will appear similar as final human expressions. Intellectual thought may require much more training in terms of the expressive aspect, and show historical progression. Art thinking may be more direct in that it doesn't need to memorize rules. Music, if you are in a punk rock band and know the power chords is pretty direct too. Classical music of course would have a later expression in music history, and current computer techniques allow all sorts of sounds and intervals. In fact the history of thought can be paralleled to innovations in technology At a fundamental level all these expressions are similar product of our brains. My opinion is that classifying the intellect as one thing or another is misleading. Most of what we learn at every moment is unmeasurable. It is a complex and fluid system, of which our expressive thoughts are only the final aspect; the tip of an iceberg. Thanks for your patience. Mark On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:58 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Dan, > > Dan: > > I don't recall you trying to engage me on anything but the definition > > of the intellectual level, which we both already know. > > > First off, I'm glad you actually do feel you have something to discuss with > me. Even though you said you didn't. I'll take it as a good thing you > changed your mind. And I hope I can make it worth your while, somehow, as > well as, obviously, mine. > > > > > There has > > already been a huge waste of time here debating that particular > > question. And now you suggest Bo deserves an apology? What is unclear > > to you about the intellect? > > > > > John: > > Well, nothing, really. I feel like I've got a good grasp on it - a working > model which serves me well and does arise from and resonate with, the MoQ. > > But I'm not sure how this model, of intellect, that I have in my head, > connects with the ideas of others. Because there seem to be problems to > me, > in the ambiguity of the word "intellect". For intellect as we find it in > the dictionary we all use, is SOM, no question about it. And if a whole > level is nothing but "intellect" in the classical and exact definition of > intellect, then Bo was right about the MoQ, and his ostracism and rebuke > are > a disgrace. > > But if there is more to intellect than the classical definition of > intellect. If intellect, as I claim, includes romantic aspect as well as > the classical, includes and is actually led by Art, as an intellectual > expression, then Bo merely suffered a misunderstanding that nobody could > get > through his thick norwegian skull and there was no point in belaboring > fixed > positions, no blood, no foul. no apologies. > > So I guess, dan, to get back to your question, the issue of whether or not > Bo is owed, somewhat of an apology, depends upon the definition of > "intellect" which applies to "the intellecual level" and since those are > very basic, and yet important, MoQ terms, I proposed starting there in > response to your challenge that I needed to use MoQ terminology or > orthodoxy > or whatever it was that made you itch. To see if we have basic > understanding there. Before moving on. > > But since all you respond is, "this has already been covered" then I guess > I'll do what I always do when I get that response(usually from dmb) . I can > only go, "Oh. Kay." > > > > > > > > > > But I remind you, that it was your complaint that I am one of those > > > "confused people" so I'm just suggesting that I'm open to you pointing > > out > > > wherein my confusion lies. > > > > Dan: > > Okay. > > > > > > I see we are on the same page, response-wise at least. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I attempted to draw you into a discussion centered around a few > > >> paragraphs from ZMM but you seemed pretty well set on your own > > >> interpretation... practice, practice, practice. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, it's not like I didn't deal at all with your posting of climbing > the > > > mountain. I certainly shed more thought, more time and more response > on > > > that post than anyone else did. Not to mention that I've posted my own > > > snippet from ZAMM (which costs me more time than it does you since I > > don't > > > have no fancy digitized version) wherein RMP turns back from the peak > of > > the > > > mountain, leading to Chris's disparagement of "you're not very brave, > are > > > you." And the author's response "no, but you'd be surprised at how > smart > > I > > > am." > > > > Dan: > > > > The ZMM version is available online at Henry Gurr's site and various > > other sites. A quick google will get you there. Thank you for your > > time in responding. I do appreciate it. > > > > > John: Yeah... but there's also something about keeping it analog, that > appeals to me, in a weird way, dan. > > I have to regurgitate what I've assimilated biologically, rather than > mechanically, and for the most part, I think that's a good thing. I'm > gonna mostly stick with it. Aren't those the real important parts of ZAMM > and Lila? The things that stick out so strong that I don't need a > reference? > > > > > What does it portend? It means that we are all different people, all > the > > > time, to all the different people around us and while everybody has > their > > > own expectations and preconceptions about their own relationships, it > > takes > > > the guy in the middle to see both sides, interpret them to each other > and > > > bring harmony into the room with a shrug, a smile, and a story. > > > > Dan: > > Yes I think the same thing happens in the discussion group. Some of us > > have been around a decade or more. I recall my old friend Krimel > > showing up unexpectedly with me greeting him with "asshole." > > > I remember that too, strong a memory as if it'd been real. I see it > playing > in my head, Krimel, getting up on a barstool, hot and thirsty after a long > ride, you sitting cool and collected in the shadows, a cold beer and a > double barrell shotgun in your lap, and you let him have it with both > barrells, the minute he sat down. I never did quite understand why. Maybe > I should have asked. I guess I didn't cuz I thought it'd be gauche. > Peekin' into somebody else's story uninvited, like. > > > > > Now, > > someone who didn't know our history would no doubt take that greeting > > as an insult, but it wasn't meant that way at all. It was actually a > > term of endearment, if you will. I like Krimel a great deal. But he > > can be trying at times too, which is his style. > > > > > I love Krimel's style. It's his metaphysics that seem weak to me. But > that > makes it all the more fun, in a way. A weak metaphysics being an > inadequate > foundation for debate, it's a constantly available target. But you no > doubt > see it different. You seem to be involved on layers I'm not really > playing, > dan. As is Krimel. > > > > > > > That isn't the reverence I am talking about, though. It is something > > you feel inside yourself. No one can tell you what it is. You can be > > pointed towards it, but there is a difference between being told how > > to walk, and walking. We were all too young to remember our first > > steps, but what a rush that must have been! That is the reverence I am > > pointing to. > > > > > Well... ok. You're pointing to something insider yourself. I get that. > You feel a reverence for something, and you're showing it to me. It's not > nice to clown with that. Ever. So ok. There comes a time to drop one's > style, in the interest of truth and true communication. > > However, one can only go so far down that path, as an individual. In order > for there to be meaning, congruence and harmony, there must be relationship > balanced in otherness. > > > > > > Dan: > > I address most all my posts here as "Hello everyone" to remind myself > > that anyone could be reading. Anyone. And I have a great deal of > > respect for Robert Pirsig. He is not only a wonderful writer and a > > warm and generous human being, he went out of his way by offering the > > annotations for LILA'S CHILD when he didn't have to. And so when > > someone disrespects him, it irks me. I can't help it. > > > > > Perhaps I should title mine, "hello everyone" too, for it is also in the > back of my mind that words go out to the world. But since I remember that > clearly anyway, and usually have somebody specific in mind with whom I'm > discussing a concept, I like to use the meaningful name. But that's just > me. > > I also have a great deal of respect for RMP. Even though he never gave me > any annotations on anything. He changed my life, that's for sure. And > I've > always been very glad of the changes, encouraged by the encouragement found > in good writing. Apt, timely and to the point. > > So when someone disrespects him, it irks me too. And when somebody > misunderstands me, as disrespectful, then that irks me also. Maybe even a > bit more, for it seems like a disrespect of me and my words, like even > though I've made it abundantly clear, time and again, how much a I respect > and appreciate the work and life of Robert M. Pirsig, that all that means > nothing, my word means nothing, and my style of flippancy and humour is > used > to judge my intent. > > Not my word, but my style. > > That irks me, dan. irks me a lot. > > > > > > > > > > As for McWatt and Buchanan, I which them well in their careers and > > > endeavors. But Their high road is not the same as my low road. If you > > > think it'd be a good idea to restrict this list to sycophants and > > academics, > > > I suggest you put the idea to Horse and see what he thinks. > > > > Dan: > > I don't recall ever suggesting that. I would be excluded from the > > list. I have no academic standing and probably never will. Besides, I > > don't offer suggestions to Horse... he does a fine job and needs no > > help from me. > > > > Fair enough. I'm inclusivity-oriented, myself. I like diversity of > opinion, variety of Religions, and plurality of intellect. And like W. > James, have a keen appreciation for society's weirdos, being one myself, > and > all. > > >> > > > I'll take your word for it Dan. You're the expert, after all. > > > > Dan: > > No I am not an expert. I am just a regular guy. > > > > > Well I think of you as a bit more than that dan. I mean, sure, that's all > any of us are. I don't know anybody that isn't, except regular gals, but > we > all put our pants on one leg at a time. > > But some people, after putting on their pants, put out good words. And I > respect those people, more than others who put out stupid words. Even > when > the people who put out stupid words are more famous, and make lots more > money, I love and respect the men of good words, dan. And I count you > amongst those. > > I just do. Whether you like me or not, I just do. And ain't nuthin' you > can do about that. > > John > 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
