Jonathan,
Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
> While the MoQ (as outlined in ZAMM and Lila) clearly shows the utility and
> limits of SO thought, it does not offer a clear alternative (the
> multiplicity of contradictory posts is evidence of this). Bodvar wants us to
> consider SO thought as the entirety of Pirsig's "Intellectual" level. IMO,
> this approach undermines the MoQ by denying the role of hard-to-verify
> patterns like feelings and emotions in the intellectual process. On the
> other hand, many of us (myself included) consider intellect to include every
> type of pattern. The molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons and
> quarks are all intellectual constructs, inorganic patterns that depict
> (communicate) a certain facet of reality. Cells and organisms are also
> intellectual constructs - biological patterns that depict reality at a
> different level. Same goes for social patterns.
> The recurring problem we have is how to regard recursive patterns of
> intellect depicting itself. I think that Pirsig caused this problem by
> making an intellectual LEVEL a part of his MoQ. In this, he inherited the
> same problem that exists in Mind vs. Matter metaphysics, i.e. how mind
> thinks about itself.
(Skipping)
> My own solution to this conundrum is to conclude that there is no
need for a
> separate intellectual level. Intellect is the whole of the MoQ, and
patterns
> of value are all intellectual patterns, subdivided into inorganic,
> biological and social patterns. Those 3 subdivisions are enough.
While I agree that all those things (cells to quarks, and more) are
intellectual patterns, what they are not are inorganic, biological, or
social patterns, and so I think you are misconstruing what the levels
are, and so missing the difference between intellectual patterns and the
rest. For example, if I cough, I am experiencing an inorganic pattern
(if I'm really paying attention), namely the force of the cough (and the
rebalancing movement to adjust for it). I am experiencing a biological
pattern (the slight pain, and/or the slight relief at clearing an
obstruction.) If I worry about annoying those around me with my coughing
I am experiencing a social pattern. And, finally, if I start building a
theory of why I am coughing, then I am experiencing an intellectual pattern.
I don't find much of a problem in finding a definite difference between
intellectual patterns and the rest. Social patterns of thinking are
those driven by the socially relevant emotions (anger, greed, fear of
breaking social mores, seeking social rewards, etc.), and make no sense
if there weren't a society. Intellectual patterns of thinking (including
Bo's SOL) are driven, if that's the right word, by something else, maybe
curiosity and, now that society has provided the conditions necessary
for them to become manifest, no longer need a society to be thought.
Which is not to say that there isn't a lot of mixup, in that one's
thinking can and usually does bounce around between the two levels, but
that is because we are still for the most part new at the intellectual
level.
> Before
> anyone challenges met with the example of mathematics, let me give my
> pre-emptive answer: Mathematics is a social pattern; it is a language for
> communicating experiences and perceptions.
Well, I reject that characterization, so don't consider myself
pre-empted. One could practice mathematics if one were on a desert
island and knew one would never again see another person. Differential
geometry was thought up a half-century before someone (Einstein) used it
to communicate something non-mathematical What pure mathematicians do
(and actually a lot of so-called "applied mathematics") is done without
consideration of its use outside of mathematics, though of course it can
be mixed up with social concerns, like, will I publish first?. I
certainly haven't heard of any social use to put the proof of Fermat's
Last Theorem to. Of course, mathematics is communicated (in lectures and
journals), and that is a social pattern, but what is communicated is not.
>
> Finally, it is my observation that when we "intellectually" analyse our own
> thoughts in this forum, we inevitably look at the inorganic patterns
> (molecular interactions and electric pulses in neurons), the biological
> level (senses, instincts etc.) or the social level (language,
> communication). Again, 3 levels are enough - you don't even need an
> intellectual level to talk about intellect.
Consider the two sentences (a) "I hope I win a Nobel prize" and (b) "The
tides come and go in relation to the position of the moon in relation to
the earth". It makes sense to think (b) even if there is no other person
in existence, but it does not make sense to think (a) in that situation.
So we need an intellectual level to distinguish them.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:24 BST