From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Apr 20 2004 - 19:24:23 BST
Hi Platt.
I said:
>> I can also agree that it is worth talking about dominance, but using
>> the
>> language of someone "being on" a particular level confuses the matter
>> when
>> what you mean by it is to be dominated by a particular level.
Platt said:
> A Muslim fundamentalist is dominated by social patterns and is thus on
> the
> social level. If she engages in terrorism, she drops down to the
> biological level. I think being 'dominated by' and 'being on' amounts
> to
> the same thing.
Now I see.
> >. When you say
>> that someone is on the intellectual level, it sounds like you are
>> saying
>> that the person literally *is* an intellectual pattern rather than
>> saying
>> she is dominated by intellectual patterns.
>
> If that what it sounds like, I haven't been clear. I hope what I wrote
> above helps to clarify.
It does, but I do think clarity can be gained by dropping the language
of "being on" a level and talk about people's dominance in favor of
discussing the specific patterns of value in question especially when
there is disagreement as to leveling since thinking about dominance is
secondary to thinking about the patterns themselves.
One other problem with talking about dominance is that it is only a
relative term. We can only say that one person is more dominated by
one type of pattern than another person, not that one person is
dominated by one type of pattern than another type of pattern. To
simply say that one specific person is dominated by the social level
doesn't seem right to me, since there is no way to say whether some
inorganic pattern like gravity is more influential than some social
pattern like shaking hands or some intellectual pattern like logical
deduction or some biological pattern like breathing.
>
>> I can see that it would make
>> more sense to say that the person literally *is* an individual, but
>> the
>> shift in names from intellectual to individual only seems necessary
>> bcause
>> you are conflating "being on" a level with being dominated by a type
>> of
>> pattern of value. As I understand the MOQ, the only things that are
>> literally on the intellectual level are thoughts.
>
> I don't see how you can disembody thoughts. Thoughts emanate from
> minds of
> individuals.
I understand that. Is there anyone arguing otherwise?
I'm saying that intellectual patterns are patterns of thinking. You
say they are patterns of what? People thinking?
Would you say, individual patterns are patterns of thought and action
of people when they are behaving and thinking as individuals?
>
>> Perhaps we can agree that an autonomous individual is one who is
>> dominated
>> by intellectual patterns?
>
> Rather perhaps we can agree that the individual level is dominated, by
> individuals who are dominated by intellectual patterns and thus often
> in
> conflict with individuals dominated by social patterns. Ex: scientists
> vs.
> voodoo priests.
I can't make sense of that.
>
>>> But when the
>>> individuals who created those patterns saw that the social level was
>>> a
>>> hindrance to their free expression, they gathered sufficient power to
>>> create a new level that freed them from the stifling confines of
>>> social
>>> level patterns, you know, freedom of religion, of speech, trial by
>>> jury,
>>> etc.
>>
>> I would say that people holding those ideas gained sufficient control
>> of
>> social institutions to institutionalize those freedoms as these
>> particular
>> ideas became widely perceived to be good by way of belief. There is no
>> static level above that of ideas (individual level) that contains
>> patterns
>> of valuation of ideas. The set of valuations of ideas is the
>> intellectual
>> level itself. no new level is required to free intellectual patterns.
>> It is
>> a matter of people creating social structure that encourage the
>> evolution
>> of intellectual patterns.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow you.
>
We seem to be talking past one another.
>>>> Eudamonia and individual describe people, whereas Pirsig's
>>>> intellectual
>>>> level is a collection of patterns of value of a particluar type.
>>>
>>> I don't see how you can divorce people from intellectual patterns.
>> This question disolves when you stop thinking in terms of subjects and
>> objects (thinkers and thoughts) in favor of patterns of value.
>
> Precisely the problem. When you stop thinking of people and begin
> labelling them in abstract terms, the mischief begins.
But I'm not labeling people with the levels at all. That's what I'm
saying we shouldn't be doing with the levels.
> I'm sure you would
> rather be thought of as Steve Peterson, a unique and valuable
> individual,
> rather than an cipher made up of four value levels like every other
> person
> on earth. Once you begin to think of people in the abstract like that,
> you
> have no qualms in coercing them to conform to some abstract plan 'for
> their own good.'.
I have no problem thinking of myself as a forest of patterns of value
in relationship with dynamic quality. In the MOQ, reality is
understood in terms of patterns rather than subjects and objects. It
sounds like you are voicing a fundamental disagreement with the MOQ. Or
maybe we are talking past one another because of our different uses of
the word pattern. All I'm talking about when I say the word 'pattern'
are structures of perception, not conforming cookie cutter people.
>
>> A person is not a fourth level entity. A person is a pattern of
>> patterns
>> that does have a fourth level component since we think of one's
>> thought
>> patterns as part of his identity. We think of his social and
>> biological
>> patterns as part of his identity as well. (We don't bother thinking
>> about
>> one another's inorganic patterns since we all play by the same rules
>> there.)
>
> This description of me is what I find scary, for the reasons outlined
> above.
Do you still think so in light of the above? A person can be understood
in terms of patterns of value and still be thought of as unique and
individual.
>>>> When you
>>>> think of the levels as types of patterns where intellectual patterns
>>>> are simply patterns of thinking, then there is no need to do any
>>>> renaming.
>>>
>>> I don't see how you can divorce individuals from patterns of
>>> thinking.
>>
>> Consider the pattern of deductive logic. Must you think about some
>> individual thinking deductively to think about deductive logic, or
>> can you
>> simply think about deductive logic? The fact that there would be no
>> deductive logic without biological brains to manipulate socially
>> constructed symbols standing for patterns of experience goes without
>> saying.
>
> Beware when someone says, "It goes without saying" which assumes a
> premise
> without evidence. Remember, it took an individual, Aristotle, to invent
> logic, just as it took an individual, Pirsig, to invent the MOQ.
What I mean is that I can't see why we need to say it. First of all,
no one disagrees and secondly, I personally can think about deductive
logic without thinking about someone thinking deductively. You keep
saying that we can't divorce intellectual patterns from the individual
having the thought. I'm not sure what premise without evidence you are
talking about. I'm not sure what you mean by divorcing in this case.
What's wrong with talking about intellectual patterns without regard to
who is thinking them? Having regard for who is thinking or saying what
is a social pattern, no?
>> You may be conflating Pirsig's levels with Wilber's holons. The
>> intellectual level does not contain the social level which does not
>> contain
>> the biological level, etc. Each is a specific type of pattern whose
>> existence depends on the level below but is not contained by the level
>> below and does not contain the level below. If that's what you mean by
>> "divorced" then, yes, I think the levels are divorced.
>
> The individual level contains the social level in so far as it uses the
> language of the social level. Wilber's holons are another issue
> altogether.
>
Are you aware of any justification in Pirsig's work for levels
including other levels? Doesn't Pirsig say the levels are discrete?
>>>> I hope that the problems that
>>>> each of you found with the term intellectual will lead you to
>>>> reconsider how you have been thinking about what Pirsig means by
>>>> level.
>>>> As Ayn Rand would tell you, when you encounter a contradiction,
>>>> check
>>>> your assumptions.
>>>> There are no contradictions.
>>>
>>> I see no contradictions in renaming the Intellectual Level the
>>> Individual
>>> Level. It's simply a proposal for a change for the better in the MOQ,
>>> something Pirsig encouraged.
>>>
>>
>> The contradiction I'm talking about is whatever drove you to feel the
>> need
>> to fix Pirsig's work. I'm suggesting that you should consider that the
>> problem may be the way you are thinking about the levels rather than
>> an
>> error that RMP made in naming them. I suspect he knew what he meant
>> by
>> intellectual. (He was even anoyed at the thought of someone else not
>> knowing what he meant because he thought it was so obvious.) If he
>> actually meant individual level, I'm sure he would have called it
>> that.
>
> This is the argument from authority--the master always knows best.
> Pirsig
> knew what he meant by intellectual and figured it was so obvious that
> everybody did. But it looks to me like he had a 'static filter' here
> that
> blinded him to the fact that not everyone understood what he meant by
> intellectual. He felt compelled to further explain it in the LC, and
> even
> now there are some who disagree that explanation.
I meant to encourage caution in making such a change to the MOQ, but it
was not needed in your case. I know that you of all people know to
take seriously any disagreement with Pirsig on the MOQ. I don't mean to
say that Pirsig could not be blinded by static filters.
Thanks,
Steve
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 Apr 20 2004 - 19:30:34 BST