[Marsha quoted here]
> From RMP's 09/2003 letter to Paul Turner:
> "When getting into a definition of the intellectual
> level much clarity can be gained by recognizing a
parallel with
> the lower levels. Just as every biological pattern
is also
> inorganic, but not all inorganic patterns are
biological; and just as
> every social level is also biological, although not
all biological
> patterns are social; so every intellectual pattern
is social although
> not all social patterns are intellectual.
..."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."
I was thinking of this earlier on another thread,
and I'm glad to see Pirsig mentions this too,
referring to within intellectual is social, within
social is organic, etc... Abstract thought does
migrate from social level, I'm having difficulty not
only with the once thought starting point of
intellectual level (Greek only), which I find to be
too exclusive and maybe misunderstood.
[Marsha]
> I think the Archemedes example matches this. It
just jumped out at > me. Seemed to fit. The
principles of displacement are independent,
> manipulable signs, mathematics. I had read this
letter, but needed
> to understand it on some deeper level. There is
still something
> valuable about going from watching a duck or riding
a floating log to
> creating boats.
Yes. I agree that I'm trying to understand this
"...on some deeper level." as well. This idea of a
boat, this creative idea about a boat that nobody else
had, or even if somebody made a boat differently than
somebody else. This, to me, is imagination, and I
place this in the abstract position (intellectual
level) due to it not found represented anywhere else.
[Marsha]
> Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, I'm not totally
> sure that I have it
> correct. I don't know for certain that this is what
> RMP had in mind.
> On the mystical level, everything is still connected
> to everything
> and in a constant state of change. But maybe the
> levels were created
> for pragmatic purposes, so I want to understand them
> correctly.
I'm with ya. I want to understand them
correctly, too. This is helping a lot. I'm just
shooten off the top of my head what I think and what
you think is helping me out more and more. Neither of
us 'got it', but socially we may be able to come up
with some kind of intellectual pattern likened to
Archemedes boat math. A way to get past all the
metaphysical set-up so we don't need to explain
ourselves with such depth each time. That's something
Pirsig was trying to avoid, all the metaphysical
set-up, that was behind the scenes not only in
science, but in our culture. He came up with a whole
new philosophy so all the old baggage and hang-ups
could be avoided. He mentioned this in the early
chapters of Lila. I can't remember what chapter or
what exactly he wrote. Do you or anybody remember
this? I'll try to find it and get back to ya on this.
thanks.
yes... the woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
