Hello everyone Sam said: RMP has variously defined what the intellectual level is; it is the level of independently manipulable signs. So I think that RMP would now say that X is an 'abstract sign (standing for a pattern of experience)'
Paul: I think that's right. One could say that the intellectual level is composed of the different ways in which independently manipulable signs bond to form patterns of thought. Sam said: At the end of his letter to Paul Turner, however, he retreats to a mystical perspective on the intellect: "for anyone who really wants to know what intellect is I think definitions are not the place to start. Since definitions are a part of the intellectual level the only person who will understand a definition of intellect is a person who already is intellectual and thus has the answer before he ever asks." Paul: I think his point here is not that intellect is undefinable in a mystic sense but that the process of definition and conceptual differentiation itself *is* intellect. (As an analogy, it is like writing "How do I follow the rules of English grammar?" or asking somebody "Can you tell me what 'talking' is?") The boundaries of the process are realised when one transcends conceptual differentiation, and I think this is where Pirsig's inclusion of mystic understanding comes in. He isn't saying that intellect is mystical, in fact he coined the term "preintellectual" to distinguish mystic awareness from intellect. Sam said: Either we can talk about the intellectual level in comparison with the other levels or we can't. Either we can develop some systematic analysis and description of how the intellectual level functions and about the static patterns that we can discern emerging, or else the level collapses into DQ, whereof one must remain silent. Either RMP is right to say that "Grammar, logic and mathematics can be described as the rules of this sign manipulation" - and we can therefore describe some elements of the fourth level with confidence - or else RMP is right to say that "the intellectual level cannot describe itself any better than an eye can directly see itself." Paul: He is right to say both things, it's just that any definition is always another intellectual pattern of value itself and follows the rules which govern those patterns. Intellect can "see itself" in the rules of grammar, logic and mathematics but cannot "get out of" the rules of grammar, logic and mathematics, or the symbols they manipulate, to describe itself. That last sentence, with its use of ocular and physical metaphor, is a perfect example of that. Consider that my writing and your reading of "the manipulation of symbols" is itself a manipulation of symbols. Sam said: Firstly, a response to something which David B raised partially, and which Paul Turner has raised before in the MD forum. There is a distinction between a person and an intellect (or, to use my language, the 'choosing unit', ie the autonomous individual in level 4). The person is the whole human being, ie including all the different levels in more or less harmonious arrangement. Paul: Right. As Mark says, a person is in the coherence between static patterns and in a relationship with Dynamic Quality. This is important to my understanding of the MOQ and is why I can't get my head around the need for the equation between "intellectual" and "individual," or the need to identify any level as where we would locate a person. Sam said: The intellect is that part of a person which is able to make decisions in response to Quality Paul: I think this is incorrect, or maybe it just needs qualification. I think decisions, defined as assertions of value, are made at all levels. The intellect is that part of a person that manipulates symbols independently of the particular experience they symbolise. Decisions made through predicting and assessing consequences symbolically would be based on intellectual patterns. Decisions made emotionally would be based on biological patterns. I don't see any reason why decisions could not be made on a combination of both biological and intellectual (and social) assertions; in fact this is probably closer to actual experience. It may not always seem that way because I think we spend a lot of time trying to demonstrate that decisions made biologically, socially or Dynamically have intellectual quality. It is commonly known as "rationalizing." Sam said: My dictionary offers as the definition of intellect "the capacity for understanding, thinking or reasoning, as distinct from feeling or wishing" and I believe this to be what RMP has in mind when he talks about intellect. (In particular, from his letter to Paul Turner, he uses the word 'abstract' to describe the signs of the intellectual level.) Paul: I think this is a fair characterisation of Pirsig's conception of the intellectual level although, as Pirsig demonstrates in his letter, "thinking" is prone to being extended beyond this usual understanding into absurdity. Sam said: This understanding, prevalent in our culture, is the one which gives emotions no cognitive content, ie it precisely IS 'distinct from feeling'. Paul: Yes, but intellect does not exclusively determine human behaviour. It may struggle against the other levels for dominance but it hasn't "conquered" them once and for all and if it did it would be at the cost of its own elimination. This struggle between levels is certainly evident in everybody I know, including myself. Sam said: If the MoQ is going to become widely accepted then it needs to engage with the wider academic world. When that academic world accepts that emotions are central to our thinking processes - and that 'abstract' thought, contrary to the previously accepted paradigm, cannot take place without an emotional input - then I contend that the MoQ needs to give an account of this also. Paul: Actually, the phrase "symbol manipulation" is probably borrowed from cognitive science. This quote from Stevan Harnad's "The Symbol Grounding Problem" seems to show similarities to Pirsig's conception of intellect. "According to proponents of the symbolic model of mind such as Fodor and Pylyshyn, symbol-strings capture what mental phenomena such as thoughts and beliefs are. Symbolists emphasize that the symbolic level (for them, the mental level) is a natural functional level of its own, with ruleful regularities that are independent of their specific physical realizations. For symbolists, this implementation-independence is the critical difference between cognitive phenomena and ordinary physical phenomena and their respective explanations. This concept of an autonomous symbolic level also conforms to general foundational principles in the theory of computation and applies to all the work being done in symbolic AI, the branch of science that has so far been the most successful in generating (hence explaining) intelligent behaviour." My point here is that we can always find academic evidence to back up our beliefs, our static filters see to that. More to the point that you raise, the MOQ does support the belief that society, and therefore intellect, need biology to support them. The paradigm that has postulated that mind includes emotion would classify the upper three levels of the MOQ as having a role in an overall concept of mind. However, because a definition of mind is not his primary concern and because he is describing reality (including human behaviour) in terms of levels of value, Pirsig limits mind to the symbolic level in a way similar to that mentioned above and describes emotions as biological patterns of value. In other words, he is not starting with a concept of mind or body when he builds his metaphysics; he is starting with value and deriving everything else from that. Consequently, I think the term "mind" and its plethora of meanings can be dropped from the MOQ with no loss in explanatory power. Sam said: When DMB writes that "I don't know that we'll find him [RMP] using the specific terms "emotion" or "viscera", but it seems quite clear to me that the biological and social levels are where we'd locate such things" I think he is reflecting accurately the 'standard' interpretation. Unfortunately, this standard interpretation of what emotions are is hugely impoverished, and needs to improve if the MoQ is to stand any chance of being coherent. Otherwise all these discussions will remain - and deserve to remain - within an intellectual ghetto. Paul: I think you have yet to make the case for incoherence. You have, so far, made the case for a lack of alignment between the MOQ and some theories of mind and/or your own beliefs and definitions. Sam said: The MoQ needs to give some account of how Quality is discerned at the intellectual level. RMP contends that grammar and logic are two such ways; I accept that, but I think they reinforce the 'narrow' definition of intellect which excludes emotions and is therefore unacceptable. Paul: I don't think you have shown why emotions belong in the intellectual level rather than the biological level strongly enough to declare the MOQ system unacceptable. Intellect is not supposed to contain or include the value of all other levels, and it is not a period of history or a species of people. Sam said: To use correct grammar and logic is to operate at the intellectual level with Quality. To use incorrect grammar and logic is to operate with less Quality. Emotions have to be involved in the discernment of Quality - to tell, to use an abstract example, which particular mathematical solution has 'elegance' - so, if we are to keep the language of Quality (and value) then we need to have a much more sophisticated account of that emotional involvement. Paul: I think you are mistaken in equating "sense of value" with "emotion." I would argue that the appreciation of mathematical elegance is aesthetic, but not emotional i.e. it is not a biological response. I would further say that emotion is a subset of aesthetic (value), not the other way round. Sam said: If we do that, I believe we will find that 'intellect' is inadequate to account for the complexity of the fourth level. Paul: I believe that any definition of the intellectual level is inadequate to account for the complexity of *a human being*, but there are three other levels and Dynamic Quality. Sam said: I think that will do for now. I haven't even touched on his comments about the Egyptians. Paul: Those pesky Egyptians :-) Thanks Paul MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
