From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 16:58:14 BST
Hi Sam, Bo, Jonathan,
Sam
> So for Pirsig, the criterion of the fourth level isn't
> "thinking" or even "intellect", it is "the manipulation of symbols, derived
> from language, which stand for patterns of experience, in the brain").
Note 95 in Lila's Child has an even simpler explanation by Pirsig of
intellect. He says, "Intellect is simply thinking, . . .." He goes on to
say. " . . . and one thinks without involving the subject-object
relationship." (As far as I know, Bo as yet to answer this objection to
his idea that the intellectual level is restricted to a subject-object
thought pattern.)
From what I've read about the evolution of man, the ability to symbolize
is almost a definition of humans as distinguished from apes. A human is
genetically endowed with ability to learn and use language, i.e.
systematic communication by vocal symbols. Apes are not so endowed, and
their vocal symbols are hardly complex enough to be called systematic.
(Perhaps Jonathan has a good definition of human from a biological
perspective.)
With that as background, and given Pirsig's symbol-based definition of the
intellectual level, I more inclined that ever towards my "dominance"
theory for defining the boundaries between levels, especially when I can't
imagine a human society without language. Ants, yes; humans, no.
Happily, I don't see that dominance negates your eudaminiac (I still
stumble over that strange word) idea that suggests the fourth level is
marked by "individuality," a symbol I'm liking more and more. :-)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 16:56:38 BST