To 3WD, Bo, Jonathan, Dan and group: The only reasonable division that I can make between intellect and social is to look at the values, attractors and evolutionary pressures that distinguish the two. Intellectual patterns are ideas or concepts that are evaluated based on the rules of logic, math and science. Roughly, these are: 1) Consistency -- with experience, within the theory and with other theories, 2) Simplicity, 3) Explanatory power, 4) Predictiveness, and 5) Falsifiability You could also probably add measurability and 'objectivity', with the latter term relating to the relative lack of social (non-intellectual) interference. If we say it is so because we our parents/ king/ God etc says so, it is a social theory. If we say it is so because this is the simplest, briefest, most consistent, predicive and falsifiable explanation, then it is an intellectual theory. Read W. James if you need more explanation. He explains some of this when he discusses truth in "What Pragmatism Means." In essence, intellectual patterns are concepts that are evaluated based upon their values as concepts (ie simplified models of reality). Concepts have been around for as far back as language itself -- and probably much further than that! The difference though is that concepts were evaluated based only upon their value to people and societies. There was no agreed upon evaluation of ideas on the scale of succesful ideas. The great revolution came about when concepts were also evaluated based upon their value as concepts. Note that this is a recursive process -- to evaluate an idea based upon its quality as an idea, with quality described as above. Modern science involves theories that meet all the above criteria, as well as serving society or man. And math in some cases goes beyond even serving man. Math breakthroughs often are purely theoretical (some of these are subsequently applied ). Perhaps to summarize the Jonathan /Bo dialogue in terms of the topic of the month. Intellect is the level of evaluating the quality of a metaphor based its quality as a metaphor. Which leads me to 3WD, quoting James: "To be radical, an empiricism must neither admit into its constructions any element that is not directly experienced, nor exclude from them any element that is directly experienced. For such a philosophy , the relations that connect experiences must themselves be experienced relations, and any kind of relation experienced must be accounted as 'real' as anything else in the system. Elements may indeed be redistributed, the original placing of things getting corrected, but a real place must be found for every kind of thing experienced, whether term of relation, in the final philosophic arrangement." 3WD adds: "Returning to James, he subdivides "pure experience" [Q] into "percepts" [DQ] and "concepts" [SQ] and the relationships between them. According to James,"pure experience" is "concrete reality", percepts are"perception(s) of reality" and concepts are 'abstract" theories, or patterns of values describing or talking about that reality. Further James maintains that the "relationship[s]" between the percepts and concepts are give and take, they influence each other in various and many ways." Rog Responds: You will probably recall I often quote James. I was encouraged to see you bring him up in this conversation. But your summary has me completely confused. James "pure experience' prior to conceptualization is DQ. Pirsig says as much on pages 417 and 418. In my readings of James, he divides concepts and percepts both out of pure experience. Both are derived through the process of forming patterns of pure experience. Percepts are those experiences that are subsequenltly classified as coming from physical experience, while concepts are those experiences that we (subsequently) attribute to memories or mental states. I believe the proper interpretation is that pure experience can be subsequently divided into percepts and concepts and that patterns of experience can be combined into the physical and mental realms. Read the second and third sections of "Does Conciousness Exist?' for a detailed explanation of the above and tell me if you agree or not. I would love to go into this in depth. Back to 3WD: "If "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions." and Dynamic Quality is something else, not" direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions," -Then what are its qualities?" ROG: The answer is that you have confused Quality and DQ. Dq is the dynamic and flowing reality of pure experience (Pirsig says so numerous times), and sq is divided and static patterns derived from this experience. Quality is the generic term for divided and undivided reality. Reality and Maya. Reality and our concepts of reality. But in the end, of course, our concepts of reality are part of reality. Maya is an illusion, and the intellectual knife is degenerative. 3WD: "And can you influence it? [DQ] In James radical empiricism you can. I'm pretty sure in my reality, I can too. Even if I can't, from a pragmatic perspective holding on to that belief is good, true, and therefore a part of my reality. Rog: The illusion is that you and not-you are divided. Once you ask the free will question, you are in the subject/object divided world of static boundaries. You've already differentiated the undifferentiated continuum. And finally back to Bo: "I am a bit wary of the "preintellectual" term (from the early writings of Pirsig) because it invokes a notion of all levels having to go through a particularly mind-intellect phase before being manifest - even Intellect itself! THAT is exactly the initial realization of Phaedrus and the start of his new metaphysics ...that there is no world before it is in someone's mind (the dreaded solipsism) and if introduced in the MOQ makes it into a SOM-moq." Rog: Bo, the intellect does not invent reality. The intellect divides reality. The intellect divides and combines pure experience into the dualism of subject and object. Or into 4 levels. Reality does not need mind to be "manifested" , but it sure needs mind to slice it and dice it. You seem to be confusing reality and models-of-reality. But I could be wrong..... Rog ***************************** "Northrop's name for Dynamic Quality is "the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum." By "continuum" he means that it goes on and on forever. By "undifferentiated" he means that it is without conceptual distinctions. And by "aesthetic" he means that it has quality." RMP in SODV ******************************** MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
