Squad,
Roger Parker wrote on 1 Dec 1998
> DECEMBER'S TOPIC: BRAIN, MIND AND INTELLECT
> In chapter 12 of Lila, R. M. Pirsig writes:
> 'The mind-matter paradoxes seem to exist because the connecting links between
> these two levels of value patterns have been disregarded. Two terms are
> missing: biology and society. Mental patterns do not originate out of
> inorganic nature. They originate out of society, which originates out of
> biology, which originates out of inorganic nature. And, as anthropologists
> know so well, what a mind thinks is as dominated by social patterns as social
> patterns are dominated by biological patterns are dominated by inorganic
> patterns. There is no direct scientific connection between mind and matter.
> As the atomic physicist, Niels Bohr, said, "We are suspended in language."
> Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived.'
> Brains, minds and intellectual patterns... How are these related to each other
> and to society? What defines and distinguishes an intellectual pattern and
> gives it its lofty perch atop the static patterns of value?
First of all thanks for all the excellent posts on this subject, every
one of them has been a gem.
However I'm still finding there are too many angles to this question. I
keep getting into circles of reasoning that never reach a conclusion.
The only way to break out has been to decide it's getting too
complicated and I must have gone wrong earlier on, so better start
again.
(the intellectual level values economy of explanation)
Is thinking just what goes on in my head?
That totally depends on how you define "thinking". Is it the same as
reasoning or is it okay to talk about biological or social thinking? The
problem lies in the word thinking, ostensibly it means intellectualizing
but in practice we do use it to mean mental activity. If we are going to
use it better make it clear from the start how we define it, or don't
use it at all
Is intellectualizing the same as mental activity?
I don't think so because there may be things going on in my head that
have nothing to do with intellect. I may babble deliriously or repeat
jingles in inner speech, no reason, no logic or purpose, just noise.
What is the mind?
Drawing on Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind what we refer to in
ordinary speech as "mind" is a kind of a psychic repository that houses
things that are not of the physical world. "Me", the subject, lives in
there along with copious memory banks and programs some of which are
well networked others are lost in the basement but may come out
periodically invited or otherwise. So mind is not the same as the
subject.
Is mind the same as intellect?
Pirsig seems to say that but I, and I think others have a problem with
it. Intellectualizing seems to be just one of the activities that "me"
does *within* the mind.
Is social valuing part of the mind?
I believe Pirsig also equates social and intellectual patterns with
subject (and biological and inorganic with object). If he also says that
mind is intellect then he's saying that the mind is just part of the
subject. It's very muddled. At least to me it is. The best explanation
of social value imo is the one Maggie gave when she described following
a line of hikers walking in single file. Her point was that she noticed
she was putting her feet in the same place as the person in front. It
wasn't because she had decided that that person was choosing the best
footholds, it was just automatic - going with the flow. I think that's
the key to the social level - it's about following the person next to
you.
Taking that as a starting point the intellectual level (which transcends
the social level) is the value of *not* following the person next to
you. But there's more to it that that, it's also the valuing of logic,
simplicity and empiricism.
Do we think when we're being social?
No we just go with the flow, follow what seems good, we value.
But then, do we think when we're being intellectual?
I don't know how to answer. Intellectualising is also just following
what seems good. You take one idea turn it around and reflect on how
much you like it. If it doesn't satisfy you take another one and so on
until you hit on one that delights. With hindsight you can see that the
ones you like best are also the simplest, empirically and logically
sound ones but that isn't precisely how they are arrived at. Ryle calls
this the "intellectual legend" or something like that. The idea that the
intellect is an organ that works mechanically placing one idea after the
next according to a set of rules. But look at the way you really do it,
it isn't like that at all. It's just liking and disliking the same as
the other levels. To reason logically is to apply a correct method but
without reference to that method. Just as native speakers of a language
apply correct grammar though they may not understand nor even know the
rules of that grammar.
So we have intellectual valuing, social valuing, biological valuing,
are they all part of the mind?
Is it important to answer that question?
Not sure, after all it's not my fault that the som has dreamed up this
half-baked concept that can mean just about anything you want it to
mean. If intellectual valuing, social valuing and biological valuing
cover all human experience do we need the word mind anyway?
So we have intellectual valuing, social valuing, biological valuing,
are they all part of the mind?
If the answer to that is yes then mind is just awareness.
Is a person who is dominated by social value mindless?
I wouldn't say so. It's just that their mind patterns are influenced by
social values ie by following. In a sense the verb think is a synonym of
believe and suppose. Often they may never waver from the patterns
drummed into them by their parents. They go along with things, never
challenging or questioning their own values. This differs from the
intellectual person who is constantly challenging what they've been
taught and what others say.
What defines and distinguishes an intellectual pattern and gives it its
lofty perch atop the static patterns of value?
The language of society is words, the language of the intellect is
mathematics. However the two have been intertwined for so long it's
become impossible to separate them. People, and particularly us here on
the list, go to extraordinary lengths to fit words into logical
patterns. But it never really works because words don't have precise
meanings.
Is Bodvar right when he says the intellectual level is the subject
object metaphysics?
The subject-object metaphysics is the assumption that reality is divided
into two separate and irreducible realms of knower and known. Because
the subject is not a part of the physical world the subject can measure
and predict the behaviour of the physical world without interfering in
it and these measurements reflect the One True Nature of the World.
Science is the key to understanding the universe and the natural
language of science is mathematics. I think Bodvar needs to explain some
more (and for heaven's sake come up with a better acronym Bo!) but it
sounds very promising.
Donny says that we should not see science as a window on the mind of
God, but as a way of talking to each other.
Quite right too.
Are we getting anywhere?
My values are telling me to go and watch Friends on the telly, that
would be a social desire. And there's still some chocolate in the fridge
left over from my birthday and my biological mind is indicating that it
may be a high quality experience if I were to eat some.
Diana
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