LS SOM and the intellect
Hi Squad: I have some random thoughts about the difference between the social and intellectual levels and the emergence of intellectual capacities in general. The posts have been very thought-provoking and its such a delicious topic. Sorry if I've posted too much. It seems language is common to both the social and intellectual levels, but as Denis described there is an important distinction. Language is social because it holds and conveys meaning, but Linguistics is intellectual. Meta-languange is intellectual. Talking is social. Talking about talking is intellectual. We believe in our language like a boat believes in the ocean. There is no real choice in the matter. "We are suspended in language." And since SOM is embedded in our language(s), it does seem rather inescapable. I suspect the division between self and other, between us and them, and between hunter and prey was apparent even before the intellectual level emerged. SOM may have roots deeper than Aristotle or the Greeks or even before the intellect, and so Bodvar's SOLAQI seems to ask very reasonable questions. I read about Ayla in "Clan of the Cavebear" 15 or 20 years ago. The book contains some interesting ideas about the evolution of consciousness, but I wouldn't recommend the film version. But there's a relevant movie that I would advise anyone to see. Its called "Quest for Fire". Its good as a movie and its fascinating in its depiction of pre-historic language and thought. It is set way, way back in time, maybe even hundreds of thousands of years ago. The grunts and gestures used by the actors were developed with the help of specialized linguists and other scientists. Anyone on the planet would be able to comprehend and follow the story no matter what language they speak. Its fascinating to see human communication before language. Going even further back, there is a theory that our pre-human ancestors began to scavage the bone marrow of found prey and the explosion of protein in their diet "caused" an expansion in our brain size, which made it easier to further develop food gathering techniques, which lead to more protein in their diets, which increase the brain even further and so on. I guess you could say its a "chicken or the egg" sort of thing, but its really just one process. In more recent times, say the last 10,000 years or so, there have been lots of city-states and other kinds of highly developed societies, but maybe the Greeks were among the first to achieve such a widespread empire. They must have seen that cultures different than their own seemed to function well enough. They must have seen that people with different physical features, a different language and different gods were still worth worthy in battle and valuable in trade. Circumstances may had revealed the limits of their local traditions and customs and introduced a need to talk about talking and think about thinking. The experience of leaving the domain of their own culture, literally and geographical, lead to an intellectual ability. I mean, its no accident that the age of discovery and the scientific revolution happened at the same time, is it? It must have been something like that in Ancient Greece too. I suspect the transition was NOT marked by a clear line. There must have been a special class of priests and scholars in many of the pre-intellectual cultures. As their "sacred" skills spread to the wider population, intellect was born. Somewhere I read recently that the first philosophers or "intellectuals" were members of a particular cult, where "rationalism" was the object of worship. They had rituals and rites of initiation just as any "mystery " cult would have. And over two thousand years later, just around the time of the French revoltion, Europeans were converting churches into "temples of reason". I probably don't have to mention Pirsig's "church of reason". It had already popped into your imagination, eh? And doesn't all this evolutionary anthropology sound terribly un-MOQ? I know it seems so much like materialism. Protein brain explosions? I think the verse in John's Gospel goes something like, "In the beginning was the word. (Logos) And the word was God. The same was in the beginning that was with God" This reminds me of Pirsig's, "..but the intellectual patterns come before the inorganic..." I'm not sure we can talk about evolution very well if the intellect comes before all the history we've discussed. That's where I'm stumped. DMB MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
LS SOM and the intellect
Hi all: I have only one thought this time, but it needs to be developed a little. To put it simply, I think there is an affinity and similarity between the pre-Socratic Sophists and Native Americans. I like the picture Denis painted. As he described, I think the intellectual level is the jungle where SOM lives. SOM rules the jungle. But I've been trying to make the case that a different metaphysic has been trying to establish itself as king of the jungle all along. I think of it as an ongoing dialectic between romantic Platonism and classic Aristotleianism. (Is that even a word?!) With respect to this month's discussion, that battle could have gone on forever and SOM would seem even more insurmountable than it already does if Pirsig hadn't gone to the East, back in time, or to the tee pee to trip. This was what it took to get outside of the SOM monster and it was a heroic effort in the truest sense of the word. I think Pirsig turns to the Native American and their kind of mysticism to provide an example of a contemporary non-Asian culture that isn't dominated by SOM. Their values are deeply embedded in the American psyche now and so Pirsig thinks the losing side has more of a chance than ever. Their values aren't alien in the West. Those values live in middle class white guys like me. Remember Butch and Sundance in sepia tone? I've always felt that Pirsig short changes the Africans in this respect. Surely their values have been absorbed into the American culture too. In fact, their relationship to European Americans was far more intimate, with many white children in the south being virtually raised by house slaves. But I digress. So the similarity between native Americans and the Sophists is that they were both highly developed on the social level, but neither of them has been "polluted" by Aristotle's brand of thinking. They both represent a place where the jungle is still free from the dominance of SOM. They were both more evolved than the naked hunter gatherers. And they were both up against huge forces that wished to build an empire way beyond local or regional culture. I mean, it seems there is something imperialistic about classical thinking. Both the Sophist and the "Indians" opposed forces that wanted to control everything. Notice how the MOQ will allow SOM to live in its' jungle? DMB MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS SOM and the intellect.
Hello Lila Squad,
And now I take my first baby step with Lila Squad!
Lilasquad / September, 1999 Question
>Seen in the light of the MOQ, what is it that was
>described in the last part of ZMM (the Greeks).
>Is it the emergence of the subject-object metaphysics,
>the "coming of age" of the Intellectual level or ...?
In ZMM; Phaedrus says, "Yes".
Because in Phaedrus's mind these dichotomies are not discovered, they are
invented and thus born at that time, just as earlier he successfully argues
that the Law of Gravity was not discovered, but was invented!
Insanity?!
Such is Pirsig's highly unique view, which a believe is because of his rare
love of true Rhetoric and not "empty rhetoric". Which of course, is why
Quality remains undefinable.
In Phaedrus's studies, He finds Socrates using dialectic to destroy rhetoric.
But Phaedrus loved rhetoric; and so this situation upset Phaedrus because
Socrates was a hero of his, but not in this area because Phaedrus also
recognized that Socrates' "Quality" did not include rhetoric. And this in
turn eventually gave birth to Aristotle's "Quality", which to Phaedrus was a
nauseating dissection (of values) and he describes it as, "the desiccating,
lifeless voice of dualistic reason".
For, "Aristotle felt that the mortal horse of Appearance which ate grass
and took people places and gave birth to little horses deserved more
attention than Plato was giving it. He said that the horse is not mere
Appearance. The Appearances cling to something which is independent of them
and which, like Ideas, is unchanging (wrong). The "something" that
Appearances cling to he named "substance". And at that moment, and not until
that moment, our scientific understanding of reality was born." (pg.343 ZMM)
Now as for my own personal answer to the question:
>Seen in the light of the MOQ, what is it that was
>described in the last part of ZMM (the Greeks).
>Is it the emergence of the subject-object metaphysics,
>the "coming of age" of the Intellectual level or ...?
I would also say, "Yes" it was the emergence and birth of SOM.
But, I would also include a subtle "No" in my answer (and in humble
disagreement with Phaedrus when He states: "And at that moment, and not
until that moment, our scientific understanding of reality was born.")
because I would say that the birth of SOM by these Greek parents was not the
"original birth" of SOM. And is more accurately described as a Rebirth. Do
not ask me to speak of when or where this "original birth" of SOM took place,
for that is fluid in nature. (MOQ)
I also believe SOM will eventually die again, and Pirsig's "Quality" is one
of SOM's cancers & we (Lila Squad) are all participants of its growing cells
in the aging process of SOM.
Quality will be reborn as experience and excellence!
But someone has to counter the SOM taking place in the area of Genetics. Or
we risk, "a great disturbance in the Force". (A little Star Wars humor)
Although I'm not worried, because the battlefield and fight is fictitious
error & it is the ballroom and the dance that is the true reality!
("Opposition is true friendship", William Blake)
A circle can be created by using straight lines.
Peace to ya', Todd
PS. "Sorry Squad, I'm clueless on "the "coming of age" of the Intellectual
level or ...?" part of the Question! That's why I never mention it. I simply
do not comprehend it. I do realize that the "Intellectual level" part of the
question is the bulk of the, "In the light of the MOQ part of the question".
(But remember, this is just my first baby step.) I will have to return to
re-reading Lila in order to participate with higher "Quality".
Thanks, Todd
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS SOM and the intellect.
Dear Lila Squad, old and new. Due to circumstances I've been away for over a week and will start by sending this response to the oldest posts, and follow up later in the day or tomorrow. Especially Diana's formidable critique requires some additional thinking. GREGG BAKER wrote: > Some of you may be familiar with this source, a book by Julian > Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the > Bicameral Mind. For all not familiar with it, I recommend it > highly. I really don't intend, however, for this to be an > advertisement for that book or it's viewpoint--I just believe Jaynes > has some things to say about the time period, and the accopmanying > shift in human (or at least Greek, at the time) mental behavior, in > question, that are very relevant to the discussion at hand. And for > anyone familiar with Jaynes' work, you will realize that I am > greatly simplifying his thought process in an attempt to: 1. > highlight those portions which I believe are relevant here; and 2. > attempt to keep this post from becoming a book. I apologize for any > particularly horrid liberties I take in this regard. Hi Gregg. I am glad you made the provision below, it's important. > First, I should explain that Jaynes does not use the term > "consciousness" in what I would think is considered a "normal" > fashion. Yes I know Jaynes' work, only secondhand though and mostly by way the British writer/philosopher Colin Wilson and his obsession with the split brain phenomenon. However I connected it immediately with the MOQ in much the same way as you do. As a matter of fact I asked Pirsig about it in the same letter I have quoted from earlier. Me: "The other three levels are more easily defined, but I think I understand it correctly when I say that this static pattern (Intellect) is not what we usually call mind or 'the mental' - that is lapsing into old subject-object thinking. Suddenly I recalled Julian Jaynes' idea that way back in prehistoric times mankind weren't aware, not capable of forming ideas. RPM: " I haven't read Julian Jaynes book but what I have heard of it seems to match the Metaphysics of Quality exactly-" I think we can safely say that Pirsig also sees this as somehow connected with the birth of Q-Intellect. But to stay in the biological metaphor, birth is preceded by conception and if language is the vehicle of "thoughts" it recedes even further back in history. After all, the pre-homeric humans received the commands from the gods as language > This thought process of mine hopefully leads back to our original > question, and hopefully my answer is now on some more solid footing, > or at least such solid footing as such speculative analysis can > provide. I think the period/process in question was the "coming of > age" of the intellectual level in the same since that youth "comes > of age" to some degree by rebellion against the prior generation. > While it was certainly not an expression of the full maturity of the > intellectual level, it was a necessary step. Exactly. This is my position too. > In regards to the relation of SOM to this intellectual > level/consciousness, I would note that the very process of > analogizing experiences in the manner which Jaynes describes is one > which, in my opinion, leads to objectifying of the subjects of > thought. Whether this means that such an subject/object split is a > necessary part of the intellectual level, or just a characteristic > of "western" consciousness, I am not certain. Although I've > studied (and attempted to practice, in the form of meditation, for > example) "eastern" thought, I don't know that I have sufficient > knowledge or understanding of eastern thought to hazard an > intelligent guess as to whether the intellectual process is > different in that regard for them. Perhaps the intellectual process > is the same for them but they (and western mystics) in general > remain in closer touch with their pre-intellectual selves than > westerners in general. A very balanced and guarded statement Gregg, you seem to lean towards the conclusion that subject-object logic is part of the Q-Intellect. I would of course have liked you to see the two as identical, but am grateful for the crumbs ;-) MARCO BONARELLI wrote: > When a new level rises, it's weak. The older levels instead are very > strong and could eliminate it. If it doesn't happen it is because > the new level is initially created by the lower in order to solve > special problems. For example, the social level initially is created > by some biological pattern to resolve biological problems, like the > food or the house. The COMPETITION between biological individuals > makes to rise in some of them the Dynamic Idea to create a social > pattern. When a social pattern is very simple there is no need of > fight between social and biological levels: the bees are very happy > of their nest, and the wolves are happy too of their
Re: LS SOM and the intellect.
BO and other LS intellects; What RMP asserts happened during the Greek period was: "Truth won and the Good lost and that is why we today we have so little difficulty accepting the reality of truth and so much difficulty accepting the reality of Quality, even though there is no more agreement in one area than in the other." (ZAMM page 371) Characterizing change as a bipolar, black or white; TRUTH WON, good lost; DIETETIC WON, rhetoric lost; issue misleads us from a more practical view of change. These quotes from William James (Pragmatism ,1907) might be helpful in re-examining this issue. [Bracketed item from added] ìThe process here is always the same. The individual has a stock of old opinions [SPoV] already, but he meets a new experience [DQ] that puts them to strainThe result is an inward trouble to which his mind till then has been a stranger, and from which he seeks to escape by modifying his previous mass of opinions [SPoV]. He saves as much as he for in this matter of belief we are all extreme conservatives.î [If] This new idea is adopted as the true [good] one. It preserves the older stock of truths [goods] with a minimum of modification, stretching them just enough ..to admit the novelty , but conceiving that in ways as familiar as the case leaves possible.î These current ìstock of old opinionsî about Quality, from the 1988 Edition Websterís Dictionary of American English, are. 1. any of the features that make something what it is: characteristic element; attribute 2. basic nature; character; kind 3. the degree of excellence which a thing possesses 4. excellence; superiority 5. [Now Rare] position, capacity, or role. 6. [Archaic] high social position b) [Now chiefly Dial] people of high social position 7. Acoustics- the property of a tone determined by it overtones; timbre 8. Logic- that characteristic of a proposition according to which it is classified as affirmative or negative 9. Phonet- the distinctive character of a vowel sound as determined by the resonance of the vocal cords and the shape of the aire passage above the larynx when the sound is produced As it stands now the Aristotelian "naming" or "truth" meanings for quality (1 & 2) are primary. These are closely followed by the "arete" or "excellence" meanings (3 & 4). While, in general, this placement seems to supports Pirsig claim, it cannot be interpreted so black and white as; Truth won and Good lost and therefore Good is no more. The race is not over and Good is in second place. While much of the dialog in ZAMM and Lila, indeed common usage of quality, focuses on 3 and 4 consider for the moment 1 & 2. If we follow James' model of change; How would the MoQ preserve these older (1 & 2) definitions of Quality with a minimum of modification, stretching them just enough.. to admit the novelty [of the MoQ], but conceiving that in ways as familiar as the case leaves possible.î I proposes that the MoQ would change two words in the current first definition of quality. Any to all and features to values making it read: 1. ALL of the VALUES that make something what it is: characteristic elementS; attributeS. What practical difference might this make? First you get at least 13 different meanings of value to substitute into the first definition of quality. But most importantly you can move the excellence definition of quality into the first position. One of the definitions of value reads: 5 that quality of a thing according to which is thought of as being more or less desirable, useful, estimable, important, etc.; worth or degree of worth Avoid circular references we skip quality definitions one and two and substituting three get: 1. All of the the excellence a thing possesses make it what it is... Or if we what to put it in more MoQ terms: All the excellence that possesses a thing makes it what it is. Continuing, I would gently modify Bo's contention that "SOM is MOQ's Intellectual level" to "SOM was/is the Western world's dominate, stable, intellectual pattern" The MoQ, a new, not so stable intellectual pattern, challenges that dominance. It remains to be seen whether the challenge will be successful. If it does Bo is right "EVERYTHING will change" but IMHO that change will follow James pattern "of preserv[ing] the older stock of truths [goods] with a minimum of modification, stretching them just enough ..to admit the novelty" thus "no instrument reading will change because of the MOQ view." But as Roger often says and many others suggest; "I could be wrong" DLT MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
LS SOM and the intellect
Hi Squaders, Bo's been asking for some kind of definition of the intellect and the intellectual level of the MOQ. I suspect we all have basically the same idea and we each experience it all the time, but it's such a broad "thing" that it can be frustrating to talk about it. But I've found some interesting bits of info on the topic. LOGOS is defined in my Oxford Companion to Philosophy as "a Greek word primarily signifying, in the context of a philosophical discussion, the rational, intelligible principle, structure, or order which pervades something, or the source of that order." You can see it as a root word in many English compounds such as biology, epistemology, cosmology, etc.. Its interesting to note that the Greeks used a verb form of the word, LEGEIN, which meant simply to "tell", "say" or "count". So you can see that the noun, logos, is the order or source of order itself, while the verb, legein, is the act of discovering and describing that order. I realize this definition smells a lot like Aristotleian rationality, he used logos to make a distinction between thought and emotion, but you know what I mean. Yes it stinks of SOM, but the idea here is interesting. We could say the logos is the intelligible structure of the cosmos or any "thing" in it, while the mythos is the structure of cultural meaning and is "intelligible" to us on a different level of consciousness. It seems to me that the act of saying and counting can take any number of approches. I think our dreaded SOM is just one way to "tell" of the logos. The Oxford Companion says to check out "neo-Platonism" in reference to a related notion, the idea of a generative intelligence, which the Greeks called LOGOS SPERMATIKOS. So I did. Neo-Platonism began shortly after Plato himself and still lives today. The battle between Aristotle and Plato has been going on the time and we can see it in Pirsig's books too. I think its the "eternal Buddha-seeker" returning again and again, as I said in the last post. And I also think neo-Platonism provides the material for an intellectual alternative to SOM and can serve the function of Bo's "transformation proceedure". It gives us a metaphysical framework that is already markedly different than SOM. One of the earliest and most important neo-Platonists was Plotinus , who lived from 204 to 270 A.D. The companion says,... "In the Enneads, (which was translated into Latin in 1492) he affirms the same themes common to the general Platonic tradition, namely (1) the non-materiality of the highest form of reality, (DQ?) (2) beliefe that there must be a higher level of reality than visible and sensible things, (3) preference for intellectual intuition over empirical forms of knowing, (4) belief in some form of immortality, and (5) belief that the universe is essentially good." "He attempts to answer the primary question of Greek metaphysics; "How does the one become many?" by positing an Ultimate Being, the One, as supernatural, incorporeal, self-caused, absolutely free and absolutely good. Since it is absolutely good it necessarily extends its goodness and power into all lower beings. Without any loss of any of its own essence, it projects itself into lower stages of itself to form lower and weaker beings... Thus the one becomes many by the necessary extension of the One into lower, progressively weaker multiple phases of itself as the principles and life-forms of all natural things. The many, in turn, always seek to return to the one, for all natural thins seek to return to some higher unity as their source." He even seperates the "progressively weaker multiple phases" into something like Pirsig's levels, distinguishing between mind (Nous), soul (Psyche) and the organism itself (Bios). I'll leave it up to you to see how closely neo-Platonism resembles the MOQ, but I should point out that this alternative view has influenced many famous thinkers; Saints Augustine and Aquinas, the mystic Meister Eckhart, the German idealists, Bergson, Blake, Shelly, Keats, Emerson and the New England Transcendentalists, and in my opinion, it has greatly influenced Pirsig too. DMB MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
LS SOM and the intellect
SQUAD: At the begining of part IV, Pirsig asks Sarah, "Is Quality a part of Greek thought?" Sarah, the Classics scholar who'd orginally asked if he was teaching "quality", answered by saying, "Quality is EVERY part of Greek thought." Later he wonders if her plain answer had deeper meaning. He wonders if she's wise like a Zen master. He wonders if her answer is like some kind of koan. "Quality is every part of Greek thought." It sounds too general and sweeping to have any real meaning, but she's a CLASSICS scholar and likely knows (knew?) how to answer in a more detailed way. But she didn't. *** "Plato is the original Buddha-seeker who appears again and again in each generation, moving onward and upward toward the "one". Aristotle is the eternal motorcycle mechanic who prefers the "many"." The battle between Plato and Aristotle is the struggle between the Goodness and Truth. It's also the fight between the Romantic and Classical ways of understanding. The winner in this conflict shapes the intellectual level according to its own vision. Or perhaps the MOQ is a peaceful merger? Phaedrus the Platonist and the Aristotleian narrator are fused together in the end, aren't they? But Phaedrus really thinks Aristotle is an asshole and in the provocative letter to the chairman, "He said he wasn't sure, but the thesis on Quality appeared to turn into an anti-Aristotelian thesis". He claimed the anti-thesis was properly Hegelian because it would over-turn the entire philosophical world. He said it was revolutionary, of Historic proportions and would add to University's prestige. He said in the letter that his thesis would synthesize East, West, Science and Mysticism! It was "just outrageous." He saw that the committee members were concerned with oughts, values and Quality, but stopped at Aristotle. They were stuck on his rationalism and couldn't relly get at a proper sense of values or Quality because of it. The chairman had only graduated two Ph.D. candidates in his time, and they were carbon-copies of the Aristotleian tyrant. And Adler loved Aquinas too much. When Aquinas married Aristotleian metaphysics with Christian theology, he gave us the worst of all possible world views and sank the intellect back into the social level. I knew philosophers like this at school. Puke! "The mythos that says the forms of this world are real but the Quality of this world is unreal, that is insane! And in Aristotle and the ancient Greeks he believed he had found the villains who had so shaped the mythos as to cause us to accept this insanity as reality." In the narrative connecting the thoughts about Aristotle, the bike's chain guard is caught up in the chain, so that what was designed for saftey has itself become dangerous. Same with Aristotle, if you know what I mean. The bike struggles to keep up with the traffic, its getting dark, cold and lonely. They had just come from Crater lake, where the absence of beer cans is distracting. The park seems like some kind of fake museum of pre-white America. He says the sunlight is frigid and the wind is motionless. The narrator lets us know how Phaedrus FEELS about Aristotle. Frigid sunlight and motionless wind are meaningful contradictions. Its a poetic paradox that gets at the problem with the rationality of Aristotle. He describes the ghost of Aristotle speaking down through the centuries - "with the desiccating lifeless voice of reason." By Aristotle's criterion General Motors produces pure art, but Picasso didn't. Aristotle's rationality has won, but the essential Buddha-seeker keeps showing up to protest it. There have always been protesters, generation after generation. Any "transformation procedure" from SOM to the MOQ entails study of the Platonic/Romanitic/Mystical view through history. The MOQ was dormant in it the whole time. The alternative has been developing and evolving along side its evil little brother all through history. The ghosts of Plato and Aristotle were there when Alexandria's mysticism lost to Rome's rational logistics and genius for organization. They were there when the Christian church was taking shape. They were there at the re-discovery of the ancients, at the beginning of the scientific revolution, and they fought hard in every Romantic movement. There must be countless smaller battles that were not recorded by history. Its also a personal struggle for everyone, isn't it? While Phaedrus was certainly an idealist, maybe even a Solipsist, his radical views are tempered by those of the narrator, whose love for solid welds and proper tools practically declare him a materialist. And as they are joined together into a unified whole, room is made for the "one" AND "the many". Goodness and Truth are both involved in motorcycle maintainence. Just sitting and just fixing are seen as the same. Zen is just the Japanese form of the Sanskrit word "Dhyana". Substance
Re: LS SOM and the intellect.
LS [BO] > "Primacy of experience", yes, but experience is of all levels and > we are of all levels. "Man and his experience" (from your previous > post) becomes so mind-like. [DLT] Got it. Subtle but important shift from ZAMM quote "Man and his experience" to experience is man in Lila. [BO] > Oh, is it that bad Dave? [DLT] It can be. Just when I think I have a tentative grasp; someone,in this case you, slip me a monkey wrench by saying:. > To see SOM as merely one intellectual pattern and MOQ as another > IP containing itself is untenable. Round and round it goes again. This time the rational wheels I stop on, Nope. The static side of the MoQ is a hierarchical system of patterns evolving towards DQ, Quality, Good, pick your term. Pirsig's response Ant "That is one of the highest quality intellectual patterns there is" indicates to me that this hierarchy must also continue within the levels. The levels seem to me only necessary to explain the MoQ to the SOM community,US. What we have is a continuim of SPoV evolving towards Good, which are a grouped for convenience of explanation in terms that originate in the currently dominate metaphysics, SOM. Since metaphysics is the broadest and most general statements about reality it make sense to me that it should be the highest quality intellectural pattern. THE "program slip" if you will. Right now I think we can all agree that in the Western world that position is held by SOM. What the MoQ espires for is to get to the top of the stack, at which time SOM will still be in the stack just of a lesser quality. If the MoQ, in time, dominates SOM those SOM-SPoV which are of the highest quality will remain, those that are not will die. But the millienium after the coming would be too quick to expect that to happen on a global scale. The other thing this perspective allows is for a new program slip (metaphysics) to be added on in the future when a higher quality one comes along. Confusedly yours Dave MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS SOM and the intellect.
David L. and David B. and Lila Squad. DAVID L. (DLT) wrote: That he is) > Still tryn' to cipher that "mind-numbingly unclear .. philosophical message > interlarded with heavy slabs of historical anthropological-philosophical > ruminations which vary from the worthless to the plausible but rigorously > unoriginal" stuff. And beginning to see, after following these discussions for > a couple of years, that Strawson was not completely wrong. My mind is > continues to become "numbingly unclear' about philosophy in general and Pirsig > in particular. Oh, is it that bad Dave? Yes, we have been through quite an ordeal since we joined the Lila Squad, but whatever our sins we can't be accused of not boldly facing the problems - or of idolizing Pirsig. He has probably been attacked more severely at this forum than by any strawmen. > Yes, but some of the basics like the primacy of experience carry over between > the two, with little if any, change. "Primacy of experience", yes, but experience is of all levels and we are of all levels. "Man and his experience" (from your previous post) becomes so mind-like. > your frustration is mine. But I think this is where strengths and the > confusions of merging the "intuitive" Eastern philosophies with "rational" > Western philosophies lies.The East says reality is One. The West says > reality is Many. Pirsig says in so much as we conceive of reality as One, > we are intuitively right, but that the One we experience is Not-One because > it is contingent on the mediation or filtering of the Many. Round and round > it goes where it stops nobody knows. You are more of a mystic (in a positive sense) than I. What about my rationalistic grand sweep below? > Agreed.But with tongue firmly place in cheek would suggest that one could also > take the position that the "intellectual level" did not emerge until sometime > between 1974 and 1991. We certainly had no clue of it's existance prior to > November of 1991. Point taken :-) DAVID B. Take a bow David. Yours was one of the most insightful and q-laden posts I have ever read. I became so absorbed that I forgot to look for disagreements ;-). It looks like ZAMM turns our creativity on. Of course, I could have wished for a more exact definition of the Intellectual level, but your demonstration of its relationship with social mythology is perhaps more to the point than my quest for principles. Someone (Troy Becker) once said that such principle-hunting is foreign to the MOQ. Let me make a grand sweep. Let's assume that the Greek experience as described in the ZAMM was Q-Intellect (as such, not merely the scientific pattern) confronting Q-Society, you seem to see it that way. That the same event can be seen as the advent of subject-object metaphysics is affirmed by David L. and these two put together mathematically makes the static intellectual level identical to SOM. What is achieved by this (aka: SOLAQI)? It provides us with the much sought for transformation procedure between the two metaphysics. Jonathan (at the MD) referring to the classical Newtonian and General Relativity denied that such a procedure is necessary, but he is wrong; the two can't be interchanged --as calculating tools! (I got this from a physics doctor). This goes for the MOQ and SOM and the ignorance/neglect of this messes up so many well-meaning arguments - I am loth to say even Pirsig's own of the quoted letter to Ant. McWatt (see below). See it this way: When SOM as Q-Intellect was new - as David B. so elegantly presented it - there was probably a lot of confusion between the old myths and the newfangled insight, and many tried to reconcile the two - even return to the good old mythological times. That wasn't possible; it's one or the other, I for one see the Middle Age as a lapse back to (social) mythos. Upon the return of REASON (Renaissance) it left all pretexts of being reconcilable with religion (I could go on for ever about how modern Christianity really is a hostage of Q-Intellect and works its head off trying to cover it up, but will limit myself). Religion/Mythos became a subject of sudy by the true and objective and scientific world view. Likewise, we the newly converted MOQists are a little - um - scared of what Pirsig says or incapable of understanding it, and try to keep the MOQ SOM-compatible; two parallel systems that can be freely interchanged, a MOQ that can be explained with SOM's terminology, but that's really impossible. SOM must become a subset of it or we will have a "dark age". To see SOM as merely one intellectual pattern and MOQ as another IP containing itself is untenable. This is good old MIND, and Pirsig's own: "The intellectual pattern that says "there is an external world of things out there which are independent of intellectual patterns". That is one of the highest quality
Re: LS SOM and the intellect.
LS
BO asks:
> (You are DLT of old? "Strawdog bites...")
[DLT]
Still tryn' to cipher that "mind-numbingly unclear .. philosophical message
interlarded with heavy slabs of historical anthropological-philosophical
ruminations which vary from the worthless to the plausible but rigorously
unoriginal" stuff. And beginning to see, after following these discussions for
a couple of years, that Strawson was not completely wrong. My mind is
continues to become "numbingly unclear' about philosophy in general and Pirsig
in particular.
[BO]
> Is it really according to the MOQ? I think it's still from ZAMM which
> I regard a preliminary stage of the Quality Metaphysics.
[DLT]
Yes, but some of the basics like the primacy of experience carry over between
the two, with little if any, change.
[BO]
> I do (for example) fully accept that time and space are Intellectual
> patterns and unessential to the lower levels, but that the lower
> levels are creations of the Intellect sounds like SOM's solipsism
> ("everything a mind game". Hi John Beasley!!) reintroduced. I
> would like the Q-Intellect to be something different.
>
> All right it may look like you (too) have Pirsig's backing, there was
> a quotation from a letter to Anthony McWatt that Risky-biz Roger
> brought into the "Reality & Observation" (Sat.21 Aug 1999) thread at
> the MD.
[DLT]
When you say "but that the lower levels are creations of the Intellect sounds
like SOM's solipsism" and "This sounds like Intellect-as-mind and also
SO-as-merely-one- particular-Intellectual pattern" your frustration is mine.
But I think this is where strengths and the confusions of merging the
"intuitive" Eastern philosophies with "rational" Western philosophies lies.
The East says reality is One. The West says reality is Many. Pirsig says in so
much as we conceive of reality as One, we are intuitively right, but that the
One we experience is Not-One because it is contingent on the mediation or
filtering of the Many. Round and round it goes where it stops nobody knows.
[BO]
> Even if I claim that the events around the Greek thinkers
> may be regarded as the emergence ('surfacing' perhaps) of the
> Intellectual level, it is not its BIRTH, only when it liberated
> itself from the Social level in earnest. Its roots are far back in
> the Social past. Language primarily.
[DLT}
Agreed.But with tongue firmly place in cheek would suggest that one could also
take the position that the "intellectual level" did not emerge until sometime
between 1974 and 1991. We certainly had no clue of it's existance prior to
November of 1991.
Dave
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
LS SOM and the intellect
Bodvar and Squad: Seen in the light of the MOQ, what is it that's described in the last part of ZAMM? Is it the emergence of SOM, the coming of age of the intellect or...? I've been re-reading part four. There is quite a cast of characters. And of course the whole issue is complicated becasue the levels of static patterns had not yet been "invented". I mean, even as P talks about how Quality got lost back there in ancient Greece, he never really describes it in the MOQ's static/Dynamic terms. Although we can see its preliminary form and Lila doesn't contradict it so much as refine and elaborate on the original idea. I think we are forced to speculate to some extent. BODVAR ASKED: "don't you agree that the Truth vs Good struggle of ZAMM sounds like a more massive shift than one idea...that he sees it as intellect vs social conformity?" Yes, I agree. In MOQ terms I'd say the intellect emerged with Socrates' death. And it is more than a massive shift than one idea. I think it represents the emergence of ideas themselves. It represents the begining of the kind of consciousness that's capable of holding ideas, intellectual concepts, or what ever you choose to call it. I haven't seen the reference lately, but it seems I can recall an apt analogy... where the prehistoric "mind" is like a warehouse full of information, the intellect is a list of items in that warehouse. And there is something lost in the abstraction, but the cross-referencing ability makes it so efficient that its worth the loss. It was something like that? AND BO SAYS "...let's dwell a little longer on the Intellectual level... it has been difficult to define Intellect ever since this discussion started." By extending the analogy, I think Pirsig was saying that we do want the ability to catalogue what's in the warehouse. I think you are quite right in asserting that "there is a mind at the social level". It seems that is precisely what is in the warehouse. "We are suspended in language", as Bohr put it. To be outside the mythos is to be insane, as Pirsig puts it. All the intellect can do is deal with its parent, the mythos, the culture, the language from which it emerged. So, in a sense, the intellect can't be seperated from society, the logos can't be divorced from the mythos. Why bother with an accounting system if there's nothing of value in the warehouse? But there is another analogy in ZAMM. P says the mythos is a shrub and the logos is a tree, and the difference is only one of size, not of kind. Here is making a case that our intellectual pictures of reality are just another set of "myths". We see this notion in the repeated references to "the ghost of rationality" and "the Church of reason", where he compares modern scientific thinking with medieval superstitions and essentially puts them at the same level. The shrub grows up to be a tree, but they are really the same "thing". But in Lila he is a little more careful about the distinctions between the social and intellectual levels, between the mythos and the logos. As you know, he even says the intellect level is more moral and should be in charge. I think the difference between ZAMM and Lila is centered around this issue. Seeing that the mythos is its own level of reality and is different than intellect, in my opinion, is one of the major breakthroughs. The MOQ's four levels of static quality replaces the shrub/tree analogy from ZAMM, and we see discrete differences instead of seamless growth. This has the effect of making Socrates' battle even more important than before, because it represents the beginning of a whole new level of reality. Its not just an older plant, but something distinct and different. In some sense, both is true. They're the same, but there're different. It must have been very hard to tell the difference at the dawn of the intellect. It must have been like the first generation of post-Victorian intellectuals. They had been raised and educated in a way that protected them from the dangers of their own making. The social degeneracy of amoral objectivity would mostly effect later generations. It must have been like that for the first generation of Greek intellectuals. In chapter 29 Pirsig writes about the cosmologists... "Parmenides made it clear for the first time that the Immortal Principle, the One, Truth, God, is seperate from appearance and from opinion, and the importance of this seperation and its effect upon subsequent history cannot be overstated. It's here that the classic mind, for the first time, took leave of its romantic origins and said, "THE GOOD AND THE TRUE ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME," and goes its separate way. ..Socrates carried their ideas into full fruition." The cosmologist had disagreements about the nature of the Immortal principle. It was called water, air, fire, change, number and mind by the various voices. It was the Sophists who came up with a way to resolve the cosmologists' debate by saying that all truths and all p
Re: LS SOM and the intellect.
Posters and lurkers of the Lila Squad!
DAVID BUCHANAN
wrote:
> The following quote is from chapter 22 of Lila and is on page 277 in
> the Bantam HB edition.
> "Now, it should be stated at this point that the MOQ supports this
> dominance of intellect over society. It says intellect is a higher
> level of evolution than society; therefore, it is a more moral level
> than society. It is better for an idea to destroy a society than it
> is for a society to destroy an idea. But having said this, the MOQ
> goes on to say that science, the intellectual pattern that has been
> appointed to take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is
> that subject-object science has no provision for morals.
> Subject-Object science is only concerned with facts."
Yes, I know and acknowledge this.
> This quote seems to get at the heart of the matter. I think it is
> pretty clear that Pirsig is saying SOM is a defective intellectual
> pattern. And it seems safe to say that his MOQ is designed to
> correct that defect. If SOM is considered equal to the intellectual
> level itself, then it becomes inescapable and so the MOQ would be
> quite pointless. Notice how he says its a defective intellectual
> "pattern" that's been appointed and he does not refer to SOM as a
> "level". It seems to me that there are many different intellectual
> patterns within the intellectual level, just as there are many
> different languanges and cultures within the social level, just as
> there are many species within the biological level. See what I mean?
Yes, David, I do see - perfectly. I also admit that the LILA
quotation above - and many more - show that you have Pirsig's
backing in looking upon the SOM as merely ONE intellectual pattern,
but don't you agree that the Truth vs Good struggle of ZAMM sounds
like a more massive shift than one idea .and, after all, in the
letter to me he says that he sees it as intellect versus social
conformity. Intellect the whole ...and nothing but ...!? If social
value can be compressed into "conformity" (a splendid term) why not
intellectual value into subject-objectivity?
You introduce the most crucial objection against the SOLAQI:
> If SOM is considered equal to the intellectual level itself, then it
> becomes inescapable and so the MOQ would be quite pointless.
I have the remedy for that, but let's dwell a little longer on the
Intellectual level. We have a relatively clear image of the
Inorganic, Organic and Social levels, but it has been
difficult to define Intellect ever since this discussion started.
At first it looks like the ability to think - the mental - or simply
"mind", but as I see it that definition meets with difficulties. One
is that there is mind at the social level. This can however be
countered by pointing to the MOQ tenet that the parent level provides
the base for the next, worse is it that the mental (neural activity)
is part of the biological realm too.
NOT AS MIND!!! I hear the protests, but mindlessness at the
Biolological level makes it - and ourselves at that level - into
the Cartesian automatons - complicated but dead matter. This is
counter to the very Q idea. However I won't pursue this further until
I see your definition of the Q-Intellect.
*
DAVID L THOMAS (You are DLT of old? "Strawdog
bites...") wrote:
> "The Quality which creates the world emerges as a relationship
> between man and his experience. He is a participant in the creation
> of all things." 25th ZAMM pg 374.
A most clear and well-documented message Dave, and I will
probably be d.. to repeat that the above is from ZAMM and written
before the conception of the MOQ. Likewise the statement that
> According to the MoQ these patterns "emerge as a relationship
> between man and his experience" as an interaction between his static
> patterns and dynamic quality. This is a quality event which,if it
> latches, changes his static patterns,if it does not, no significant
> changes occurs.
Is it really according to the MOQ? I think it's still from ZAMM which
I regard a preliminary stage of the Quality Metaphysics.
I do (for example) fully accept that time and space are Intellectual
patterns and unessential to the lower levels, but that the lower
levels are creations of the Intellect sounds like SOM's solipsism
("everything a mind game". Hi John Beasley!!) reintroduced. I
would like the Q-Intellect to be something different.
All right it may look like you (too) have Pirsig's backing, there was
a quotation from a letter to Anthony McWatt that Risky-biz Roger
brought into the "Reality & Observation" (Sat.21 Aug 1999) thread at
the MD.
> "the intellectual pattern that says "there is an external world of things
> out there which are independent of intellectual patterns". That is one
> of the highest quality intellectual patterns there is. And in this highest
> quality intellectual pattern, external objects appe
LS SOM and the intellect.
Bodvar and the gang: I'm so happy that this topic won. It's a fascinating way to look at the differences between social and intellectual values and I suspect this discussion will increase everyone's understanding of the MOQ. It's going to be a rich month, don't you think? The following quote is from chapter 22 of Lila and is on page 277 in the Bantam HB edition. "Now, it should be stated at this point that the MOQ supports this dominance of intellect over society. It says intellect is a higher level of evolution than society; therefore, it is a more moral level than society. It is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a society to destroy an idea. But having said this, the MOQ goes on to say that science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has no provision for morals. Subject-Object science is only concerned with facts." This quote seems to get at the heart of the matter. I think it is pretty clear that Pirsig is saying SOM is a defective intellectual pattern. And it seems safe to say that his MOQ is designed to correct that defect. If SOM is considered equal to the intellectual level itself, then it becomes inescapable and so the MOQ would be quite pointless. Notice how he says its a defective intellectual "pattern" that's been appointed and he does not refer to SOM as a "level". It seems to me that there are many different intellectual patterns within the intellectual level, just as there are many different languanges and cultures within the social level, just as there are many species within the biological level. See what I mean? How and why did these intellectual patterns go wrong? What can be done to correct the mistake? I think Pirsig's books are an attempt to answer those questions. It was a long road from Socrates to Armistice Day in 1918 and a wrong turn or two has brought us to our present situation. The defect occured somewhere between the Greek emergence and the modern take-over. (Descartes represents a major fork in the road.) But the defective patterns are dominant, but not absolutely, and there have been contrary voices all along the way. And I think what Pirsig has done is gathered the minority views from history to show the alternatives, chiefly the Sophists, but also some of the better scientists, some Romantics and the Mystics. I mean there are non-SOM thinkers in the West, aren't there? The defective SOM patterns were appointed because of complex historical reasons. As I understand it, the Scientific Revolution over reacted to the Church, which insisted on nearly totalitarian social conformity. So the intellectual level was polluted by a political battle. Science threw the baby out with the bath water and got rid of morals altogether. SOM Science pretends social values can be disregarded entirely and has thereby created a huge blind spot for itself. It pretends to be independent, but it is connected to society, just as society is connected to biology. Thanks for your time, DMB MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
