JONATHAN FLOATS A TRIAL BALLOON SUGGESTING REMOVING INTELLECT AS A LEVEL
This may be considered a radical proposal for restructuring the 4-levels
as 3. In doing this Intellect is neither removed, merged with another
level, nor demoted to a lower level.
===================================
Hi Mob,
DIANA:-
>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 [snip]
I fully agree with Diana. It seems that almost every time we have
discussed the intellectual or intellectualisation, we have run into
problems.
JONATHAN on 28th June:-
>Thus, my proposal for a DQ/SQ split:-
> DQ - things that happen
> SQ - intellectualised description of DQ.
That didn't go down very well, e.g. MAGNUS on 2nd July:-
<<<
My apologies, your proposal of SQ as 'intellectualised description of
DQ' sounds like the intellectual level to me. I jumped to the conclusion
that you regarded only intellectualised descriptions as really static,
i.e. ever lasting.
>>>
And yet, Pirsig himself says that DQ = preintellectual reality and
SQ = intellectualised reality.
Pirsig's view of Intellect AS A LEVEL seems to confuse all this and
leads to things like:-
Inorganic + Biological = Objects or Matter
Society + Intellect = Subjects or Mind
I don't see that anyone is really happy with this, even among our MoQ
conservatives.
Some months ago, Maggie Hettinger and I discussed (partly in
sci.philosophy.meta) whether we regarded the 4 levels as 2+2 (like
Pirsig) or 3+1. I argued the latter, with Intellect somehow abstracted
from the other 3 levels.
I think most of us have no problem in accepting
-organisation of molecules into living cells/organisms
-organisation of organisms into societies.
But it is not obvious that societies organise into "intellect". To
propose that requires all sorts of justifications and
word games.
Thus my suggestion to retain the 3-tiered cake- Inorganic, Biological
and Society - but to regard Intellect not as a level, but as a
"sideways" abstraction. We INTELLECTUALISE patterns of all 3 levels
(laws of physics, biology and society).
Now, a big question - does the 3-level cake "leave anything out"? I
would argue that all the what we have till now regarded as "intellectual
values" are in fact social patterns e.g. individual freedom, free
speech, justice, logic, science.
DONNY has made several illuminating contributions explaining how our
whole system of logic is (merely) social convention.
With the 3-level cake, we have no problem in explaining any behaviour,
be it of molecules, humans or social groups.
Intelligence and thinking fall nicely into the biological (individual
intelligence) and social (collective intelligence) realms. NOTHING IS
LEFT OUT.
Where does that leave intellect? Well, it seems to be off to the side -
looking across. It's an abstraction of the three levels. The 3 levels
are InPoV, BioPoV and SocPoV and together constitute MATTER. They are
the
OBJECT for Intellect which sits as MIND and SUBJECT. To
regard this division as a primary metaphysical division is SOM.
But, you will note that in the 3-tier scheme, Intellect is excluded as a
level because it has no empirical reality. It seems to be some abstract,
almost mythical construct which lacks substance (ha). Yet, without it,
the whole 3-tier cake no longer has any structure. It is the structuring
itself which IS intellect/intellectualisation.
So folks, is my sacrilege to be called SOM, MOM or just plain rubbish?
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 - 16:02:43 BST