From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 11:07:09 BST
Hi Sam
> I don't know if the particular/general distinction
> has been discussed on the list before (I still
> consider myself comparatively 'new' - bizarre, I
> suppose, after 2 years) but it would seem to me to
> tie in somewhat with Pirsig's position.
Pirsig also clarifies the distinction between the
intellectual level, social level and biological level
in terms of language with the following statement:
"Those aspects of a language that a microphone or
camera can pick up are objective and therefore
biological. Those aspects of a language which a
microphone or camera cannot pick up (i.e. meaning) are
subjective and therefore social. If the gorilla
understands what is meant in ways that are socially
learned, then the gorilla is acting socially. If the
gorilla can read and write and add and subtract then
it is acting intellectually." Lila's Child
I think that the key words there are 'socially
learned' and 'meaning'. If you think of learning a
language, you don't learn every phrase you will ever
use. You learn the meaning of some words and phrases
at the beginning, but it is the underlying structure
and order (grammar) of the language that you really
must grasp before you can say you are fluent. Grasping
underlying structure and order is an intellectual
activity to me.
You can of course just learn the meaning of some
particular phrases for particular situations as a lot
of holidaymakers do, but that is an example of social
learning limited to repetition to me. Although it does
enable communication of meaning and is a social
activity.
A similar parallel can be drawn with arithmetic. You
can learn the particular multiplication tables by
repetition or you can understand the rules of
multiplication of any numbers you care to think about.
The symbolic rules are expressed without any referent
in algebra.
It also has become a useful way to seperate other
things into the 3rd and 4th levels for me. For
instance, in British politics, we have the
conservative ideology in the 4th level and the
particular Conservative Party led by Ian Duncan-Smith
right now, in the 3rd level. It would be moral for the
conservative ideology to destroy the Conservative
Party (a view probably held by many in the party!).
If a society or community of any kind is a group of
specific humans, you should always be able to point to
it. Otherwise, it's a notion without a specific
referent and is therefore in the 4th level. It isn't
any less real, it's a different reality.
This may be what's causing the US (and UK) a bit of
trouble with regards to terrorism. It's clearly a real
threat, but a war against 'terrorism' is a war against
a notion. A war against al Qaeda is the war against
something specific. But they aren't geographically
specific and historically, wars are geographically
defined assaults - hence Afghanistan and Iraq, has it
done anything to stop terrorism?
> That is, he
> sees the intellect as the 'manipulation of
> language derived symbols' - which seems a good way
> to describe an abstract concept, which is what
> you are referring to here. Fair?
Fair, in terms of language that's what I meant.
> My worry is that this then ties into a Platonic
> perspective, ie quality increases with abstraction,
> or, in different terms, you pursue the good/DQ
> through intellectual ascent. I'm not sympathetic to
> that point of view, but I'm happy to hear from
> people who are.
Interesting comment about Plato, it has occurred to me
that maybe he simply got it the wrong way round. He
saw the nature of reality as static and knowable and
the derived reality as dynamic and unknowable. This
causes problems because it leads to an epistemological
belief that you can attain knowledge of the true
nature of reality through dialectical reasoning. We
know where that leads us..
However, Pirsig turns this around and says the nature
of reality is Dynamic and unknowable and the derived
reality is static and knowable. Thus the intellect is
good for latching Quality explanations of experience
beyond the specific and particular and furthering
evolution but bad for understanding the Dynamic nature
of reality.
The intellectual level runs into problems when it
starts looking for the underlying structure of the
whole universe in inorganic nature which changes
according to its ideas about it anyway. I agree that
the yellow brick road to the Grand Unifying Theory of
everything is not where Quality is to be found.
But I honestly think that no 'level' will ever lead to
Quality, if anything, Quality is what is leading you.
The responses made at all levels of experience are all
based on Quality, the best responses seem to bring
about a coherence in all levels and a harmony which we
would do well to recognise without understanding.
That is probably my definition of eudaimonia.
Anyway, the particular/general distinction helps me
clarify the 3rd and 4th levels and keep them discrete,
as intended.
Thanks
Paul
__________________________________________________
It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm
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 : Tue May 27 2003 - 11:08:11 BST