From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 08 2003 - 16:45:28 GMT
Hi Bo,
> It was not so much Pirsig showing how "thinking" ends in thoughtful
> bugs that I found wrong - no, I loved that - but his not discarding it
> as a definition of intellect (after that display). IMO it is useless
> because it is too IMMENSE, it is one of those unassimilated concepts
> (Aesthetics, intuition, truth ...) that can give rise to a metaphysics
> like the MOQ ...and thus are some aspect of Value!
Do you think Pirsig's distinction between "intellect" as ordinary,
everyday thinking and "intellectual" as highly abstract, mathematical
and/or philosophical thinking is helpful? Or does that just add further
to the confusion? (I presume you include thought with truth, beauty and
goodness as "veins of the mother lode QUALITY," thought being the
primary process of attaining truth.)
> An aside here: I guess you will balk at this and say "But the
> Neanderthals must have been thinking beside going round listening to
> voices in their heads". Please look to Jaynes' deliberations on what in
> his terms were an "unconscious" existence, in moqish social reality
> at: http://julianjaynessociety.tripod.com/mind.pdf
Thanks for the citation. Frankly I was less than impressed with Jaynes'
theory since it is based on flimsy evidence, like the absence of "I" in
the narrative Iliad. (I just finished a novel by modern author Sydney
Sheldon that contained not a single "I.") As for voices of gods, I
subscribe to the much simpler (and IMO more plausible) explanation that
Gods were invented to explain causes which were otherwise inexplicable
to primitive man, like kids attributing thunder and lightning to Gods
having a bowling game in the sky. Man, including primitive man, cannot
survive when plagued by doubts. As a matter of necessity, Gods were
invented, necessity being the mother of invention. Finally, to describe
primitive man as suffering from auditory hallucinations like modern
schizophrenics disturbs my sense of identity with patterns common to
all human beings, reminding me of the stance taken by some who
stereotype blacks as intellectually challenged. Again, the evidence
Jaynes presents is skimpy IMO.
> This theory satisfy all views: Intellect is MIND, it is THINKING, it is
> CONSCIOUSNESS ....from its own point of view, but it is S/O from MOQ's
> point of view. In addition it fulfills the tenet of DQ using a pattern
> of the lower level to escape that level. (carbon to escape "inorgany",
> language to escape society).
>
> > I don't quite follow your argument here. Seems to me that the
> > intellectual level, of all the levels, offers the broadest point of
> > view. But I grant that all points of view are limited by human
> > physiology. (A bee experiences light waves that we can't see in our
> > everyday lives.) That the Quality grand vista sees everything in terms
> > of some things are better than others, i.e., values, morality, means
> > it sees the intellectual level as better than the social
>
> Yes, this is the idea. Quality SEES intellect. From within one can't see
> the outlines of anything, thus the Q-view is somehow off-set to
> intellect. I noticed that Pirsig in the letter went lightly over this
> argument
>
> PIRSIG:
> The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation
> but some kind of other level is not clear to me. There is
> nothing in the MOQ that I know of that leads to this
> conclusion.
>
> but who knows .. in a future letter :-)
I think you have a point. Quality is direct experience. Direct
experience might be described as "that which observes, sees, witnesses,
etc." Since an eye cannot see itself, the intellectual level which is
clearly something one sees as a prerequisite to meaning and
understanding, must be viewed from a higher level, i.e. Quality direct
experience.
> > the social
> > better than the biological, etc. but not forgetting the higher depend
> > on the lower. This Quality "grand vista' is available not just to us,
> > but to all creatures, great and small. I willing adopt the 'grand
> > vista' stance, but that doesn't diminish my great respect for the
> > value of intellect
>
> No, it does NOT diminish the value of intellect, it remains top notch,
> subordinate only to DQ alone.
>
> > and the transcendent values of truth, beauty and
> > goodness.
>
> In my opinion these are veins of the mother lode QUALITY.
The more I think about it, the more I like your "Quality grand vista,"
or "Q-view" for short. But rather than change the vista metaphor to
"mother lode," perhaps the transcendental values of truth, beauty and
goodness can be envisioned as colors from a rainbow that cast a
celestial glow over the lower mountains and plains as seen from the Q-
view.
> > In any event, what matters most to me is using
> > Pirsig's levels to identify people who are driven by primarily by
> > social level values or intellectual level values.
>
> Yes, the MOQ is a great tool, I find it useful at more and more fields,
> not least the one below .....
>
> > Thus, we agree on
> > the current war between the West and Islamo-Fascism.
You and I and perhaps a few others are convinced that the MOQ is a damn
good moral guide based on experience and reason. Not perfect, but
better than the alternatives which are largely based on a swamp of
unidentified feelings that foster such platitudes as "truth is
relative," "don't be cruel," and "it's not fair,"-- representing the
full extent of many people's inquiry into morals.
Best regards,
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 -
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 : Sat Nov 08 2003 - 16:54:44 GMT