XCTO COMMENTS ON PLATTS ANALYSIS OF BRAIN, MIND, AND INTELLECT CONNECTION
i agree with platts intellect concept but the brain and mind caoncepts have no
basis and severely undermines his analysis. I'll start backwards with
intellect then mind and finally brain part of Platt's essay.
In a message dated 12/3/98 4:14:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pholden5@earthlink.net writes:
>In the MoQ a high quality intellectual pattern is one that establishes truth
> based on "logical consistency, agreement with experience and economy
> of explanation." In other words, Pirsig wholeheartedly approves of the
> scientific thought process. His argument is not with the methodology but
> with the assumptions and intellectual framework used by science, namely
>that 1) the world is divided into mind and matter, subjects and objects and
>2) all dependable truth comes from measurements. These assumptions
> appear to work just fine in the realms of inorganic and biological patterns
>(with the possible exception of quantum mechanics), but they have
>nothing to offer in realm of values, morals and quality.
.> Pirsig uses standard scientific reasoning to build his MoQ. But his
>starting assumptions and intellectual framework are different. For him the
>world is not divided into subjects and objects but into Dynamic and Static
>Quality. And his intellectual framework is not "measurement" of an
>objective world independent of man but "logical fit" to a world presumed to
>consist of four evolutionary static patterns of value plus DQ in which man,
>as trustee of the intellectual level, is indispensable.
This is fine understanding of intellect as related to scientific reasoning
and its high quality.
However,
>Mind in the MoQ is more of a puzzle. Pirsig seems to use the word
>interchangeably with intellect. He calls mind a “separate evolutionary level
>of static patterns of value.” Mind also consists of mental patterns as in
>“Mental patterns did not originate out of inorganic nature.” And mind
>does the thinking as in “… what a mind thinks is as dominated by social
>patterns as …” (All quotes from Chapter 12 of Lila.) I think Pirsig
>considers mind to be the same as intellect, but uses the term intellect
>more often in order to make a clear distinction between the MoQ and
>SOM.
At this point I think that Platt misreads Pirsig. Pirsig would say that mind
encompasses both the social and intellectual levels and that he would never
agree with this premise. This could very well be a point of departure that we
could take from Pirsig's MOQ, but nevertheless, it is not necessary to equate
mind with intellect. My reasoning is that in his SODV paper he clearly says
that the lower two levels are the "objects" and the higher two levels are the
"subjects" of SOM and if you read this section it pretty much says that this
is a basis of MOQ. I know that Bodivar disagrees, but we haven't had this
debate out yet, so we should now. I personally agree with Pirsig as I said
before that 'mind' started as the beginning to the social level with language
and tool use as the precursors..
>If mental patterns(mind) and intellectual patterns (intellect) are the same,
>what do they do? First, they are patterns that can recognize other
>patterns. Second, they are patterns which can dominate and control
>social, biological and inorganic patterns. Third, they are patterns that can
j>udge the value of other patterns using various criteria. Finally, they are
>patterns with the capacity (rarely used) to see patterns which have never
>been seen before. In short, intellect (mind) is a pattern-recognizing,
>pattern-creating force that employs the medium of language, numbers
>and symbols to carry out its purpose which is basically to relate
>perceptions into patterns of meaning so one can act to enhance life.
If you take my assumption (not a fact) then this idea is shot because it also
describes the social level and thus does not explain very much.
>What about thinking? Is thought an intellectual pattern? I see no reason
>to say otherwise. But there are different kinds of thinking.
>Our spontaneous and favorite kind of thinking allows ideas to take their
>own course without any particular direction except as determined by our
>hopes, fears, desires, frustrations, loves, hates and resentments of the
>moment, all pretty much centered around our beloved ego. This type of
>thinking, called reverie, goes on most of the time and is generally of low
>quality.
This sounds biological and social. Our ego, I would say is mostly social as
well.
>Reveries are interrupted by the second kind of thinking which makes
>everyday practical decisions such as whether to buy Romaine or iceberg
l>ettuce, to wear black or brown shoes, or to reprimand or let pass the
l>ateness of a subordinate. Often such thinking is done instinctively or
>impulsively, but when weighed against alternatives becomes thought of
>medium quality.
Again primarily social patterns (does it matter to the intellect what clothes
is more "fashionable?").
>A third kind of thinking comes into play when our beliefs are challenged.
>Our ideas are as dear to us as our skins, and, when threatened, we leap
>to defend them. Such thinking consists primarily in finding arguments for
>going on believing as we already do and is usually of low to medium
>quality. When argument (rationalization) fails to dissuade a challenger,
>the next step is to call him names. In fact, ideas about social morals are
>rarely put forth rationally. Emotional outbursts and name calling are the
>preferred methods, as Rigel illustrated. Definitely low quality.
I would disagree that social morals are not used rationally in that celebrity
can override almost any argument. Think OJ Simpson or Princess Diana.
>The brain is a biological pattern consisting of nerve tissue and chemicals
> that mysteriously creates an organism’s awareness of it's environment.
>The brain of man extends awareness to include himself.
this mystical answer has no merit. I think we could better describe this in
terms of brain development and controls as pertaining to 'reptile brain/human
brain' etc. or AI theory AND I think that most people in science say the
'left brain/right brain' argument is only a generality and not an acceptable
theory anymore.
My point is basically that mind needs more discussion.
xcto
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:42 BST