From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 14:37:55 GMT
Hi Mark,
> Mark 4-11-03: Hello Platt, Please perish any thought that i am ordering
> you to agree! ;) But, I feel you do agree with Pirsig here, and this is
> my reasoning: First of all, we make a distinction between, 1.
> Intellectual patterns. 2. Social patterns. 3. Culture. Culture is a
> combination of 1 and 2, as Paul has been careful to remind us.
Good point. In reviewing Pirsig's notes to 'Lila's Child' I find him
saying exactly that: Note 47: "I think a culture should be defined as
social patterns plus intellectual patterns." Also, in a letter to Paul
the great author makes a distinction between 'intellect' and
'intellectual' which I failed to pick up on:
"Another subtler confusion exists between the word, 'intellect,' that
can mean thought about anything and the word, 'intellectual,' where
abstract thought itself is of primary importance. Thus, though it may
be assumed that the Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had intellect, it
can be doubted that theirs was an intellectual culture."
> Therefore, you can see that primitive 'cultures' are a combination of 1
> and 2, but dominated by 2, while advanced cultures are a combination of
> 1 and 2, but dominated by 1. Just because primitive cultures, (a
> combination of 1 and 2) are dominated by social patterns does not
> exclude thinking. i.e. ability to symbolise and abstract does it? Of
> course not! We know they did this because there is language, art and
> artefacts surviving from this period.
You're right. In my own defense these Pirsigian differences between
society, culture, intellect and intellectual are quite subtle and it
takes a keen mind like yours to make the differences clear.
> But no literature indicating
> dominance of intellectual patterns, and that is why Pirsig indicates the
> Bible as an example largely devoid of intellectual 'cultural' value -
> but the Bible, in virtue of being the manipulation of symbols is, as a
> matter of MoQ fact, composed of intellectual patterns (written
> language). The language is socially directed, but writing, qua writing
> is an intellectual activity. You, I, and Pirsig agree.
Oh, oh. I'm confused again. Ar you saying the Bible is a product of
intellect but has no intellectual standing? Isn't that like saying the
cave paintings are a product of thought but have no value in a
intellectually dominated culture? Something seems wrong if that's the
case. Or does beauty trump the intellectual?
> Mark 4-11-03: Moving back to 'culture,' do we share a
> common ground, You, I, and Pirsig? Mark
Yes. But, you'll have to keep reminding me of some of these subtle
distinctions to keep me from wandering from the Pirsigian path.. For
doing so in this exchange, I'm most grateful.
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 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 14:37:20 GMT