Hi Scott,
I am extremely puzzled. I would have assumed that your presence on this
site meant that you were not a strict empiricist, i.e. one who only believes
that only things which can be experienced via our senses or augmented sense
are real. This is how I am reading your questions to me. If you are a
strict empiricist then you should read or re-read Zen and the Art. Pirsig,
not the first and not the last, who has shot down that belief. It seems
obvious that Quality exists even though it can not be directly seen, tasted,
touch, etc. Hence:
[Scott:]> I see what you are saying, but my response is the same: to me this
way
> of dividing things up has no metaphysical value, for reasons stated
before:
>
> a) its primary division of things is into mind and non-mind, and that
> resuscitates many of the platypi that the MOQ has tried to deliver us
from.
GARY'S RESPONSE: This sentence seems to only make sense if you are making
a
strict empiricist argument. Much of this e-mail is all about raising the
strict empiricist concept as an attack on my idea of the 4th level = mind.
I can take everything you have asked me and turn around and challenge your
idea that the 4th level is not the mind but is rational thinking. What is
that? It is and it can only be mental processes! Unless you have some
radically new concept that I'm not privy too. Thus this whole first
challenge is meaningless. I didn't say that this division of mind and
non-mind was the primary division I am only pointing out that Pirsig already
made this division. He divided things up into 4 levels, the first two are
not mind. The last is pure mind and the 3rd is both. This is not my
invention I am merely calling a thing that "quacks like a duck, walks like a
duck, looks like a duck, by the word: duck."
If I am wrong that the 4th & 3rd levels are not mental then what are
they???? Static patterns of Quality yes, but so what. The monumentally
important question is :Where are they experienced? I have answered that:
they are experienced in an individual's mind. If you don't like that
answer, then what is your answer??? I haven't a clue.
>
[Scott]> b) it does not emphasize the all important difference *within* each
> individual, namely his or her intellectual development which, at this
> stage of our culture, lies in SOT: to consider events as dispassionately
> as one can, to question social presuppositions, and so forth. To this
> generally accepted (by SOM-ites) emphasis, the MOQ (and "good"
> post-modernists) adds the questioning of the presuppositions of SOM, in
> particular such SOM distinctions as mind/matter.
GARY'S RESPONSE: I don't see how what I have outlined changes anything. I
am simply asking and answering where is the 4th level & the 3rd level
experienced. I don't understand how anything has changed? I have no clue
as to 'where' you place the 3rd or 4th level if you don't consider them all
or partially mental. Where and how are they experienced? What is the
process?
>
> So: we disagree, and I see no common ground on which we can pursue the
> argument. After all, we both looked at a mere three sentences of
> something Pirsig wrote and interpreted it in opposite ways.
>
> Some platypi:
>
> Gary Jaron wrote:
>
> > Hi Scott,
> > I believe that the 4th level is the place where the
> > individual mind of an individual human exists in
> > Pirsig's organizational scheme.
>
>
> So my experiencing my carrying out biological functions is the 4th
> level. My experiencing weightlessness should I go into freefall is the
> 4th level. My raw experience of the pain from sitting on a hot stove is
> 4th level.
>
> You counter this (I believe) by saying that, no, the fact that bodies in
> freefall are weightless is the inorganic level, while our experience is
> 4th level, but to that I say: how do you know that there is an inorganic
> level independent of my experiencing it (in other words, by making the
> internal/external divide fundamental, you have an epistemological
> problem that the MOQ -- in my interpretation -- doesn't).
GARY'S RESPONSE: Answer your own question, if the 4th level is not the mind
then what is going on? Ahhh..., perhaps you are not a strict empiricist but
some sort of Idealist? Are you saying that there is no physical reality?
Are you saying that there is no "independent external reality'? If that is
the case, then now all things are clear. I interpret Pirsig as believing in
an independent external reality, a reality that exists independent of anyone
experiencing it. Are you saying that this is not the case. That your
understanding of MOQ is that there is no physical independent reality????
>
>
> > The 3rd level is the repository of collective activity
> > of groups of individuals. It is what is accepted as
> > culture for each society. No emotional responses
> > existed at the 3rd level, only individuals have
> > emotions. though you can metaphorically say a group
> > as in a "mob" is acting with one motivation,
> > rage or anger or lust, etc. This would be only
> > metaphorical language.
>
>
> What language isn't metaphorical? How do you distinguish between the
> literal and metaphorical (a distinction that only came to be known
> through SOT, by the way -- see Barfield). How do you know that only
> individuals have emotions? What about the Giant? or is that "just" a
> metaphor? What do you think of Sheldrake's contention that morphic
> resonances may be non-individual (or at least non-human) factors in our
> experience? Must this sort of possibility be rejected because it can't
> fit into your scheme (it doesn't seem to be either internal of external).
GARY: If something like morphic resonances exist as non-individual factors
then they are by definition outside of external to the individual. My
concept is the experience is mind, the cause of the experience will
eventually lead to something that is not mental but bio-chemical and/or
inorganic and which eventually will have be something that is external to a
human body. I don't have to explain morphic resonances, that is Sheldrake's
problem. I am merely pointing out how something is experienced and thus
describing that process and how it occurs. Quality is a thing that exists
outside and inside of the mind. It is the organizing principle of
everything. I only am describing the process of that experience of quality.
You asked "How do you know that only individuals have emotions?" I can turn
this around: Explain to me who has emotions? Explain the biology of
emotions? I can not imagine that you can do so and not conclude that
emotions are the solitary experiences that a human being has. As for the
"Giant", it is Pirsig describing New York City. It is a metaphor. I am not
going to even bother with the whole "what is language" question. Calling
the 4th level mind or something else has no relevance on that question.
Whether the 4th level is or is not the mind won't change any answer you, I
or anyone else can offer about trying to answer "what is language?"
I will not get trapped into questions that are not relevant to whether the
4th level is or is not the mind.
>
> Only a individual person has a
> > emotion. There is no group mind. No group thought.
> > there are accepted cultural ideas, beliefs, laws,
> > norms, etc. These can be recorded and these records
> > are part of the external evidence of a culture and
> > hence a 3rd level.
> > The ideas of "liberty", etc are 3rd level
> > social norms. But as a concept or a belief in a human
> > they are socialized into a individual and thus become
> > an idea held in a human individual mind which means a
> > 4th level.
>
>
> How does the norm get from outside to inside? (Again, the mind/matter
> platypus).
GARY: Again: How do you answer this question if the mind is not the 4th
level? I can explain this, one of my essay's on the MOQ web sites does some
of this, but I need not unless you can explain it with out positing the
existence of mind & matter.
>
>
> >
> > The difference between 3rd and 4th is the difference
> > between individual mind and collective culture. 4th
> > level is always internal mental processes. As I think
> > of what to write on this email, the thinking is 4th
> > level, the act of "publishing", the typing and
> > the sent email is a external 3rd level act and thing.
>
> >
> >
> > 4th level only exist as mental internal stuff of a
> > singular person. 3rd level can exist as internalized
> > mental stuff within a single person or as external
> > products of one or more humans.
>
>
> Doesn't this vitiate your thesis? If the "3rd level can exist as
> internalized mental stuff" doesn't that make it 4th level(by your
> scheme). If it is an external product, then what is it, animal,
> vegetable, or mineral? Or is it morphic resonances? Or a metaphor?
>
GARY: I had in long detailed tried to explain how the 3rd level was both
internal 4th level concepts and public events and public objects which are
organic and inorganic things. Again this a question that you should have to
answer if the 4th level is not the mind, then what is it? Your questions
seem so false, so arguing for the sake of arguing. But, I will answer you
with a obvious example: What is a book? Answer: it is a object which
exists on all levels. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. It is made of atoms hence 1st
level. It is made of wood pulp turned into paper hence 2nd level stuff.
[whether this is completely accurate is not really relevant to the real
issues of 3rd & 4th level descriptions.] The book is printed with ink [the
ink is either organic chemicals or inorganic chemicals] that is formed into
patterns of symbols. These patterns of symbols have been determined by
society, hence 3rd level. The symbols are an alphabet, lets call this the
English alphabet. The English alphabet system is a 3rd level product. The
letters of the alphabet are arranged into words. Those word patterns are
again 3rd level. The shape of the letters and the way they are arranged are
a physical arrangement of the ink [which is either a 1st level chemical or a
2nd level chemical.] The symbols, the words have meaning. This meaning can
only be experienced by something reading the book. The process of reading
when it is done by a human being starts off as inorganic to organic
processes [photons hitting the ink and then hitting the eye 1st level
events, the photons trigger the biology of the body to process that sense
data this is all 2nd level events.] Eventually there is the experience of
understanding the meaning of the symbols, the words. This experience is a
4th level process and event. The understanding of the meaning had been
taught to the human, that process of teaching how to read English is a 3rd
level process. The process of learning is a internal 4th level process
within the individual human.
All of the above is obvious stuff. If you call the 4th level the mind or
something else, you would have to give the same answer I just did in
describing what a book is. I don't understand your asking me these
questions? Why are you doing it? What is the point? How does calling the
4th level the mind or not the mind change the answer to whether 3rd level
consists of internal mental and external physical things?
>
> >
> > When a single human has a new idea or new point of
> > view that first exists at the 4th level. When it is
> > expressed in print or by speaking it is a public event
> > and thus has entered the 3rd level social.
>
>
> Which cannot have either a material or mental existence as far as I can
> see. Can't you see what a platypus you are creating?
GARY: Again how am I making a "platypus"? I am beginning to believe that
you do not believe in the existence of non-material independent to a
observing human being stuff. It seems that you have trouble with the belief
that there exists physical objects.
>
> The
> > listeners/readers on their 4th level think about the
> > new ideas. Then they take actions. Those actions are
> > 3rd level events. whether a society will or will not
> > change is a 3rd level challenge that goes on first in
> > the minds of individuals [thus 4th level].
>
>
> Doesn't it have to "goes on *only* in the minds of individuals", not
> "goes on *first""? Where does it go on second? (And it appears you
> reject the Barfield/Jaynes thesis that this is only true in this stage
> of our culture's development (earlier, ideas -- and hence change -- came
> from gods).
GARY: No, I am not rejecting Barfield/Jaynes, I am describing the world of a
post-breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and a world if "Idolatry" as Barfield
calls or present concept of sense data. I would give a different
description of a Bicameral mind society.
>
> What those
> > appointed upholders of the society (teachers,
> > ministers, elective officials, whatever) decide to do,
> > the actions they take, once those acts are
> > communicated it becomes a 3rd level event.
>
>
> If you tell me "You're under arrest", there is your (4th level)
> experience of deciding I need arresting and saying the words, and there
> is my (4th level) experience of hearing the words and deciding whether
> to resist or go quietly. In both your and my 4th levels there is the
> knowledge of the legal system. Where does the 3rd level reside?
>
>
GARY: Again I ask you the same question: where does the 3rd level reside? I
have explained it with my mind/private/internal and the public/physical
events & things/external. If you do not accept the existence of the mind,
then where and how do you explain any 3rd level event?
> >
> >
> > The difference to be redundant is that 4th level exist
> > only within the mind of a single person.
> >
> > 3rd level is the socialized ideas &
> > linguistic/symbol systems of a culture and thus
> > existing within a human mind and it is also all inter
> > activities amongst humans. It is everything we would
> > call culture.
> >
> > My scheme [& I believe Pirsig's scheme] follows
> > the process of events, always asking where do they
> > take place. Hence the use of terms such as internal
> > activities and external activities.
> > 4th level is mind. All the other levels are
> > theoretically public events, process, things,etc.
> > Stuff that can be examined by the senses or augmented
> > senses.
>
>
> The third level is not examinable by the senses. How can I taste, see,
> hear, smell, or touch the act of being arrested?
>
>
GARY: Your question is the false strict empiricist question. My answer is
go read Pirsig's "Zen and the Art". Strict empiricism is nonsense.
> > Only the 4th level mind can not be seen by the senses.
> > You have to inquire to find out what is going on
> > inside a mind.
>
>
> Actually, Barfield points out somewhere (in another book) that in fact
> it is our sense experiences that are private, while what we think is
> what can be made public (because we can say it). Also, nothing of the
> 3rd level can be perceived by the senses, which is why, I presume,
> Pirsig considered both the 3rd and 4th levels to comprise "the
> subjective". How do you reconcile your scheme with that?
>
>
> - Scott
>
GARY: I agree "what we think is what can be made public"!!! This act is one
of taking an internal thought, a 4th level mental activity and making that
thought a 3rd level event by the act of speaking. It is false to say that
"nothing of the 3rd level can be perceived by the senses". The symbols of
the English alphabet is something that is a 3rd level thing. They can be
perceived by the senses. Your questions are odd to me, why are you asking
such simplistic challenges which in the end are mainly irrelevant to whether
you define the 4th level as mind or not. I am coming to the conclusion that
you do not believe in the existence of independent physical reality and you
I am not sure whether or not you also think that Pirsig also holds the same
belief. I do not think this is correct. Pirsig does believe in an indecent
physical reality.
I am feeling very puzzled by your questions [Which is a 4th level event that
I have made into a 3rd level event by writing this e-mail!]
Gary
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST