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 pack. When we
> speak about the rituals of the social level we must think that many
> animals live also in simple social patterns and the behavior of the
> individuals is regulated through established roles. That
> establishment is their pattern and all the knowledge they need is
> stored in fixed behaviors, the rituals.
Hi Marco.
Your "messagio" went home with me - all of it, but particularly the
above paragraph where I spot the same rudimentary Q-Society that I
have spoken about at several occasions. I also liked the below
statement particularly well
> We must always remeber that inellectual level is
> not thought, or mind. It is a new class of patterns, originally
> created by the social level, and evolved along the time.
it shows that we agree very deeply about the Q-idea. However, when
it comes to your position on whether the events of ZAMM is the rise
of Intellect or of subject-object metaphysics, I am a little unsure.
In the "SOM vs MOQ" chapter you say:
> I believe that the philosophy of Aristotle has been the birth of the
> SOM. And I think that until that time the intellectual level was
> only in his first form: to find a philosophy good for leading a
> society.
Aristotle was - according to P. - the mechanic who assembled the
vehicle/theory behind the Greek "new age", Platonic or Aristotelian
don't matter, the groundwork of SOM (or Q-Intellect) was laid long
before that - rather with Parmenides. Gregg's thesis is that the
BIRTH of that new age was as far back as Jaynes describes it. It's
terrible important to make some huge generalizations here not to
become bogged down in details. Even Cntryforce's
> The most historically important showdowns in the history of
> American Literature, and indeed one of the most historically
> important showdowns in the history of man.
is not an exaggeration at all.
Finally this sentence of yours:
> We cannot know if , at that times, the division between MOQ and SOM
> were already present. We cannot know if the Sophists, or Socrat,
> were the defenders of the MOQ (I don't think so).
puzzles me a bit. "Division between the MOQ and SOM" and "Sophists
the defenders of the MOQ" ? Hmmmm. The MOQ was not coined then, but
I see what you mean, it sort of makes "Quality" identical with
Society something that makes it perplexing. Why not simplify it by
seeing SOM as Q-Intellect and that the Greek event was its "shootout"
with Q-Society? It's messy to alternate between the SOM/MOQ conflict
and pure MOQ views. If the Q-metaphysics is accepted, SOM is
incorporated into it. This solves the many problems that constantly
appears when seeing the two as competing world views on equal footing
in some meta-metaphysical space outside of both.
Thanks for your attention.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:50 GMT