Greetings Marsha, Craig, and all --
On Tues, June 4, 1:30 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> asked:
So what are these intellectual patterns? Are they based on Aristotle's either/or, yes/no, black/white, right/wrong, true/false, 0/1, A or not-A, my way or the highway type of logic? Are they the definitions found in a dictionary? Is the definition of 'sneeze' an intellectual pattern? Is everything represented by a name an intellectual pattern. Are intellectual patterns hypotheses developed using the scientific method? Concepts by intellection? Is an intellectual pattern any sentence that uses the term 'philosophy' in it? Is it whatever -_____- thinks? ???
I am so curious to hear what you think on this matter? Craig responded:
IMHO the key to understanding the intellectual level is to see how it emerges from the social level.
First of all, we have to know exactly what you mean by "intellectual" as a level. If the four levels of Pirsig's MOQ are Inorganic, Biological, Social, and Intellectual, then the term "level" is a specific form of existence experienced. One might call these existents (patterns) inanimate matter, living species, individuals perceived collectively, and subjective awareness.
Now, you'll note that all of the above are experienced objectively with the exception of awareness which is responsible for our knowledge of the other three. In other words, without conscious awareness, there would be no experience of inorganic, biological, or social entities, let alone their existence as "levels". If understanding is what you mean by intellect, there must be something to understand, and that something is our experience of otherness, whether you choose to call it objects, patterns, or things.
As for Craig's suggestion, I have often wondered why intellect must be regarded as having emerged from the social level, e.g., society, as opposed to, say, the individual. Certainly we need an individual in order to intellectualize; I'm not at all convinced. however, that we can draw additional intellectual conclusions from a collection of individuals. Collective groups only reflect on the thoughts of the originator (authority?), voicing agreement or raising issues as appropriate.
Of course if "intellect" is intended to mean conscious awareness -- particularly Value awareness -- this is distinctly an individual (i.e., subjective) capacity. I know this got Bo Skutvik in trouble here some time ago, but consciousness (what I call Sensibility) is not a product of biological nature or the existential world. Instead, it is the essential nature of the Primary Source divided amongst all us cognitive agents.
At least, that's my humble opinion. Marsha. (Sorry it doesn't quite fit the MOQ levels paradigm.)
Best wishes, Ham 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
