Rick, Simon K (primarily) and all Focus.
First a word from the oldster to thank David B, for his "Call to Bob"
post. I have several times been struck by David's creativity (there's
one post from around Roger's "Stand and be Counted" thread that I
have been searching for....Dave you know which one, give me the
date or a search word!) as well as actually reading Pirsig's work to
find the relevant passages. Also thanks to Cory R. for some of the
same reading pleasure, it's a treat to read stories that conveys the
idea so well. Also a warm thank to Diana who kindly let us keep up
this activity - the squad/focus/discuss longevity must be something
of a record web-wise, but it's thanks to the enormous vistas that
the MOQ opens up (something that Mark Butler notices). Jonathan
has a point about us starting anew with each newcomer, there's
much repetition, regurgitating and harping on pet ideas, but reading
all old posts is perhaps too much to ask.
Rick wrote (on May 4):
> And I add.... what about IQ??? When Pirsig boats about his 169
> Stanford-Binet IQ scores (in ZMM)--- what exactly is it that the test
> has measured? His capacity for being independent from society? His
> ability to employ SOL?
You are right about subject-object logic (SOL). Young Phaedrus
(who the narrator of ZMM tells about) was of pre-MOQ vintage, so
his IQ was his ability to employ subject-object logic.
> ---- Pirsig seems to indicate that it has to do
> with analytical reasoning leading me to believe it has something to do
> with the employment of SOL.... So I guess I would answer NO to the
> question at hand. Intellectual Value has to do with freedom from
> sociological value.... Intelligence has to do with the employment of
> analytical reason (or SOL if you prefer) which I will grant is a tool
> of the Intellectual level, but I doubt it's the whole ball game....
I agree ....to a point...and bear with me Rick while I try to keep all
the balls - as well as the board - in the air simultaneously? The
terms intellect and intelligence denotes two different things -
moqwise seen, but Intellect (as SOM) never got those two sorted
out, the spectre of "awareness" got into the way. Animals may
display all sorts of abilities (just heard about an octopus who knew
how to open screw lids of jars!), but they are "machines"
programmed by instincts, not to speak of machines/computers that
are just dispensers of zeros and ones....blah, blah, the SOM-
sayers go on.
According to dictionaries 'intellect' is the power to reason while
'intelligence' is mental ability, but both has some inextricable link
to awareness, the special human realm that according to SOM
elevates us to demi-godlike status.
We must regard the pre-moq world as a reality where Intellect
reigned - as SOM - without competition. It had no inkling of any
levels in a MOQ sense, its mind-matter reality was all there was.
Now - after Pirsig - we may regard Q-intellect as analytical reason
(which IS freedom from social values) while "intelligence" - once the
"mental" deadweight is jettisoned - are all the various lower levels -
separate or compound ....including Intellect! (You will know that I
regard the MOQ as beyond intellect).
..................................................................................
I notice that Cory Ramage also sees intelligence as primarily
human and identical to intellect - the "dictionary" one.
> The intellect points to the best path. Intelligence and intellect are
> the same and yet the former simply points human. There is something
> more than intelligence in reality and it is in no way confined to
> human beings. What that something is I cannot really say. It's that
> undefined moment of illumination when the past and future become now
> and the best way simply appears before us, daring us not to take it.
> The birds building their nests and the spiders spinning their webs
> simply know the best way to go about their business. Who can say how?
> That is intellect at work. Intelligence, on the other hand, has an
> assumption of a human quality which we sometimes attempt to attribute
> to non-human entities. In essence, intellect and intelligence are the
> same.
The "something" is Dynamic Quality I would say, yet my point is
that the MOQ level called 'Intellect' is something other than when
classical intellect (as SOM) peers down its nose.
............................................................................................
Simon K wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Simon and warmly welcome. (now we have had all the Apostles
visiting :) except ...you know who.
> this is my first time posting to this list, and I'd just like to
> express some reservations about the intellectual level and its
> existence separate to the social level.
> Pirsig says that when in conflict, the intellectual level will always
> dominate the social level.
All levels are trying to dominate their underling, no exception re.
Intellect's relationship with Society.
> And he also says that the intellectual
> level came into dominance after WW1. That appears sensible, as
> millions were prepared to fight in WW1, yet by 1933 the Oxford Union
> voted in favour of "This House would not fight for King and Country."
> However, there are still many people who would be jingoistic and fight
> for their country, regardless of what they were fighting against.
We have been on to this issue many times and I think we have
reached some agreement about Q-intellect's rise to power. WW1
was the turning point when intellectual value came to dominate
Western culture, while its "coming of age" (when it started to
challenge social value seriously) is what is described in ZaMM. It's
emergence out of Society, however, stretches far back into the
past.
> Which, to me, suggests that the intellectual level only has partial
> dominance.
Definitely, but intellect believes it is in charge, the rest of existence
just fails to acknowledge it. Between you and me Simon (the rest
has NEVER heard it :-)) My panacea is that Q-Intellect is subject-
objectivity itself.
> Pirsig says in SODV, however, that the intellectual level
> "contains such static intellectual patterns as theology, science,
> philosophy, mathematics." all of which have been around for thousands
> of years. Therefore, the intellectual level has been in existence for
> thousands of years, sharing dominance with the social level, much as
> it does today.
Exactly. Even if intellect dominates our culture in a general way, it
doesn't dominate the outlook of all individuals at all times. Social
reality isn't gone, it's below the surface as strong as ever. However,
once a person comes into political position, she or he has to start
talking the correct lingo officially, while inwardly...
Where then, did Pirsig create his date of the early
> 20th century for the intellectual level from?
I believe Pirsig is justified in saying so with these qualifications in
mind.
Bo
..............................................Post Scriptum.......................
Today Lloyd Klinedinst wrote:
> As a newcomer - lurker 'til now - I have hesitated from posting
> exactly because of the general issue Jonathan brings up here. Not only
> do I feel the need to have read both RMP books (which I have - several
> times) but know the FAQs AND have read the archives - because as
> Jonathan says, "I know it takes some time for newcomers to realize
> that they usually aren't the first ones bringing up particular points,
> and they do deserve a chance to make their point in their own
> words..."
> Perhaps this raises a new protocol possibility. When raising a topic,
> some changing responsibility of oldtimers might be to post relevant
> archives to read before engaging in the discussion.
> This issue is "a classic" - what might some MOQ solutions be?
Hi Lloyd. Nice to meet you.
The MOQ solution? I don't think there's such a one. You have done
a great job by reading Pirsig so thoroughly and peeped into the
archives as well. You may also have a look at Dan Glover's "Lila
Child", but I doubt that anyone will ever be fully prepared - even the
old-timers don't remember exactly where, when or what ...we just a
general sense of positions, and that goes for own stuff too I'm afraid
:-).
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
