From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Sep 07 2005 - 09:24:34 BST
Hi Jos
On 6 Sep. you wrote:
> Drawing on parts of the below, as I see this, there are several things
> being combined together which are making it impossible to have one
> good definition of intellect.
Pirsig says that he did not bother to define intellect because it's
self-evident, but he spends a good part of LILA to show that the
static inorganic value doesn't correspond to matter, consequently
static intellectual value does not correspond to mind.
Its so easy to walk into SOM's mind trap, believing that intellect is
its mental department where thinking takes place and ideas
resides, but MOQ's intellect is a static level with static values and
these are built on the subject/object distinction.
> My developing view is that there are
> distinct types of awareness that occur at each of the static levels.
Yes, but this does not contradict anything of what I say. There is
awareness .... of the respective level's value!
> Firstly there is biological awareness that is animalian first
> consciousness, then there is cultural awareness which is the above
> described in terms of language and then there is intellectual
> awareness which is the act of drawing rational comparisons between the
> linguistic descriptions.
I like this Jos. My own goes like this: Biological awareness=
"sensing", social="emotions" and intellectual="reason", but we
seem to agree on reason. That intellect's reason builds on/uses
social language is plain.
> So the "things" that are the intellectual
> static patterns of values, are the comparisons themselves which
> includes "feelings contrasted with reason".
If I read you correctly I agree. Intellect is the capability to
separate subjective emotions from objective reason.
> Level straddling is not
> necessitated by any of this, each level always makes its patterns out
> of the patterns of the levels beneath and in doing so both
> subordinates and is reliant upon them.
Yes, the "straddling problem" was what Sam said about the SOM
being social. The same fallacy that Mark Maxwell commits in his
comment to you:
> Mark: SOL goes flying out the window because one Social pattern of
> value is the celebrity status of the social animal. How can there be a
> celebrity status without a you/me distinction? Daft isn't it? It's like
> trying to imagine what it would be like towalk into a room and have
> absolutely no one look at you.
He's incapable of seeing that the SOM is what Pirsig describes in
ZMM as having it's origin in with the Greek thinkers, that which
the MOQ is supposed to subsume - not any you/me distinction.
> I am not sure if this supports or attacks the SOL, please take it as
> you see it.
It definitely affirms it, but as you have worked it out for yourself
it's a common conclusion.
Bo
>
> Jos
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of skutvik@online.no
> Sent: 06 September 2005 11:39 To: moq_discuss@moq.org Subject: MD The
> intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)
>
>
> Sam, Ian (Paul mentioned) and All.
>
> 3 Sep. Sam wrote:
>
> Bo earlier:
> > > I see Pirsig's presentation of SOM's emergence (ZMM) as most
> > > convincing and penetrating, so why seek for other explanations?
>
> Sam earlier
> > I'm not sure I do disagree with ZMM. I do disagree with your take on
> > ZMM though (tho' not by much).
>
> There is one point. You agreed with Ian who said (1 September):
>
> > Mine is to see GOF-SOMist Intellect as just one pre-existing static
> > latch within a more broadly defined intellectual level consisting,
> > at levels above that latch, as the MoQ itself. (I see it that way
> > because it leaves room for future evolution of the MoQ itself,
> > within itself. It allows me to hang on to the cranky idea that a
> > repaired MoQ could be "the final word", whilst still claiming to be
> > a pragmatist - but I pre-empt the debate.)
>
> Do you really agree with a "more broadly defined intellect"? It is the
> breadth that is the problem and it gets worse when Ian goes on to say
> (if my reading is correct) "consisting (at levels above that latch) as
> the MOQ itself". The MOQ as an intellectual pattern is impossible.
>
>
> I have pondered many strategies to make people see that these
> static values are the S/Os and that what leads us astray is the
> intelligence fallacy. But first intellect about which my Oxford
> Advanced says:
>
> "Power of mind to reason contrasted with feeling and
> instincts" (plus some examples of its use)
>
> Reason (which is objectivity itself) contrasted with feelings or
> emotions (which is subjectivity itself). Pirsig said he did not bother
> to define intellect because it is self-evident and here it is written
> loud and clear. But I can shout and kick, it's no use, people see the
> first phrase - "power of mind" - as intellect. And this is of course
> intelligence, about which the dictionary says:
>
> "Power of perceiving, learning, understanding an
> knowing; mental ability." (plus examples)
>
> And if this is seen as intellect no wonder we have this mess.
> People of old did naturally possess all these qualities so it runs
> through the social level and deep down into the biological. It's an
> hopeless definition of MOQ's intellectual level.
>
> > I see SOM as linked to the intellectual in the same way that a field
> > of corn is linked to the social. It's produced by the social, it's
> > governed by the social, but in itself it's a biological pattern. As
> > I see all language as necessarily social (and SOM is language)
>
> Interesting. That language is a social pattern I agree with, and also
> that intellect latched on to language to escape society, but SOM as
> social because it "is language" ...see below.
>
> > I think
> > it's social, to that degree. Put differently, that which is 'above'
> > SOM is (an) intellect, not 'intellect as such' - where I agree with
> > you that it is simply a reification of classic SOM understandings of
> > 'mind'.
>
> You see SOM as social because it is (expressed by) language.
> Look, DQ used carbon to escape the inorganic level and the first
> non-inorganic pattern had necessarily to be biological. Likewise when
> DQ hijacked language to escape society, the first non- social pattern
> must be intellectual. At the base of all intellectual patterns we find
> language, in the same way that all organisms are carbon-based.
>
> Yours seems to be a variant of Paul Turner's view on biology. He sees
> DNA as inorganic yet serving life's purpose, while you see SOM as
> social yet serving intellect's purpose? I protest this view of
> something straddling two levels. Carbon (plus some other) is the only
> thing left when an organism dies. DNA decomposes along with the rest.
> Language is the social pattern left if intellect dies. SOM
> "decomposes" too.
>
> .....unless you see SOM as "me here you there" but I hope you
> agree that SOM is the subject/object METAPHYSICS as
> described in ZMM?
>
> We must talk more often Sam.
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov
> '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries -
> horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
>
> On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the
> Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied
> exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> Please see
> http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf for
> further details.
>
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
>
>
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
> the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
> is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
> Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
> could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
> mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
> message by e-mail.
>
> This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
> monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional
> Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail
> content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
> laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
> contents.
>
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by
> Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov
> '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries -
> horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 07 2005 - 09:30:44 BST