JONATHAN CONTINUES DEBATE WITH MAGNUS ON INTELLECT AS A (NON) LEVEL
Hi Magnus and Squad,
>> From Lila (Chapter 5)
>> "...Whether the stove in the cause of the low quality or whether
>> possibly something else is the cause is not yet absolutely certain.
It
>> is the primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and
>> heat and oaths are later intellectually constructed."
>>
>> There are probably other relevant passages in the two books. Now I'm
>> waiting for Magnus or someone else to say that I've twisted or
>> misinterpreted Pirsig's words.
>>
> Sure, I don't see him saying that this pre-intellectual experience
>is
> DQ and the post-intellectualized version is SQ. My interpretation
> is that the pre-intellectual experience (in the hot stove example)
> is biological SQ (BiPoVs), and the post-intellectual version is
> intellectual patterns representing those BiPoVs.
Magnus, are you sure you read the same Lila that I did? How do you
reconcile
your interpretation with this (Lila, Chapter 9):-
"The negative esthetic quality of the hot stove in the earlier example
was now given some added meaning by a static-Dynamic division of
Quality. When a person who sits on the stove first discovers his
low-Quality situation, the front edge of his experience is Dynamic."
MAGNUS:-
> What I'm trying to get through is that intellectualized
>representations
> of something is just as real as that something it represents. It is
> completely different, it mustn't be confused with the pattern it
> represents, but it is just as real. You've never bought that, right?
Like the division between horse and "horseness"? If they are both "just
as real", is the division also real?
>
> Then how come anyone on the Squad like me can engage you
> in such energetic conversations, ain't those real? It's not like I
> force the keys on your keyboard to suddenly bite your fingers
> to make you uncomfortable. It's the intellectual patterns that
> makes you feel whatever you feel.
>
Now let me see Magnus. To put it in the terms you use in your previous
paragraph, we have an "intellectualized representation" of our energetic
conversation, which "mustn't be confused with the pattern it
represents".
Well I am indeed confused. Magnus, your logic is impeccable. But IMO you
have stumbled upon an absurdity resulting from the underlying
metaphysical assumptions. I believe that this springs from regarding
Intellect as a LEVEL.
Several people previously argued the point that thoughts are not
necessarily IntPoV, and would say:-
Thoughts about molecules are InPoV
Thoughts about organisms are BioPoV
Thoughts about society are SocPoV
Thoughts about ???? are IntPoV
Magnus and other Platonists might have a problem separating between the
thought patterns and the patterns they represent, but I think we ALL
have problems with that 4th level. A more graphic representation of this
problem is my example of a TV camera filming the screen on which it
displays its image.
I'll let MAGNUS have the last word on IntPoV:-
[snip]
> Yeah, and I can regard any intellectual pattern as any kind of
>pattern because they're all dependent on lower levels.
[snip]
So Magnus agrees that there is nothing to distinguish IntPoV from any of
the others. Remember what RMP said about things which can't be
distinguished? ;-)
> About the hierarchical chocolate stuff from sci.phil.meta, I can see
> that you have a scientific reductionist approach [snip]
> Everything *is* ultimately composed of inorganic patterns. But
> it makes no sense describing the taste of chocolate in terms
> of molecule percentages or the plot of Lila in terms of dark spots
> on the pages of a book.
You missed my point. It makes perfect "sense" in terms of logic. It
doesn't always make sense in terms of utility. Lila represented as dark
spots on paper is of possible utility to the typesetter. It isn't much
use for discussing the novel with your mother-in-law.
MAGNUS
> You mentioned the hot stove example, why do we talk about
> biological discomfort and not the inorganic version.
[snip]
> No, we talk about the biological version because it is the most
> primary reality we experience on a hot stove. ...
The point of the stove example is what you *react to*, and not what you
"talk about".
The low quality assessment precedes any other classification.
MAGNUS
>>Patterns doesn't organize themselves into higher levels. They are just
>>providing the foundation for higher levels. There's a difference.
JONATHAN
>> Organize THEMSELVES? Why the extra word Magnus? ...
Magnus, you still didn't answer my question. What sort of metaphysics
needs to make a distinction between WHO organizes and WHOM is organized?
> The distinction is necessary to point out that each level is only
>involved in
> quality events of its own level. The atoms involved in the hot stove
>example
> are not concerned with the biological discomfort, the are acting
>according
> to their morality, what's good for them, the forces of nature.
>
Where's the predictive power in that?
All you are saying is that patterns follow their own nature.
That is so true that it is a tautology.
JONATHAN
>> ...I started with Pirsig's 4 levels stacked along ONE-dimension, and
I
>> have now moved Intellect along a SECOND sideways dimension.
> I guess it's a step forward, you have at least realized that
>intellectual patterns are different from the rest.
I have always claimed this Magnus. 3+1! That's why I don't like it as
just another level.
> I don't have Lila here so I don't know which comment you refer
> to but of course I see that intellect is not directly accessible
> via the 5 senses.
>That is part of the MoQ extension of reality.
> It says that intellectual patterns is also real. I see that I'm
> repeating myself over and over again but you force me to.
>
Let's drop the "intellect" word for a second. The 5 senses exclude
imagination, inspiration and similar. That's the whole problem with SOM.
It dismisses these attributes as "subjective" while happily capitalizing
on their products.
...
> I never claimed to be modest but since you ask, I meant "you" as in
> me, you, anyone.
Point taken. I used to be modest, but I'm perfect now:-)
Have a nice day/evening everyone wherever you are,
Jonathan
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