From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Sun Jul 06 2003 - 08:15:00 BST
Hi Bo, Maggie, Sam, Plat and all,
This is getting to be like old times!
JONATHAN
> To link this to an earlier discussion, I believe that intellect
> started evolving beginning with the Big Bang, which established the
> potential for everything we know today. At what stage particular
> intellectual patterns become identifiable is itself very vague. What
> Pirsig says on this that a particular type of thought (SO) became
> identifiable in ancient Greece, and the use of REASON to govern
> society became dominant after WW1.
> Bo, does this make my position clearer?
BO
Yes, it does, but such an intellect even Squonk would balk at :-) I believe
that you mean 'intelligence', 'mind' or 'awareness' - and as such a copy of
Quality - one of those concepts from which a similar metaphysics can be
made.
JONATHAN replies
I don't see the problem. Intelligence/mind/awareness/thought, or what ever
one chooses to call it, is not so much a "copy" as a "facet" of Quality, in
the full Pirsigian sense. ZAMM and Lila are attacks on a metaphysics which
places thought IN PLACE OF Quality.
MAGGIE
> For a fascinating novelization of the emergence of the intellectual,
> you might want to read the first few chapters of Barbara Wood's "The
> Blessing Stone." ISBN 0-312-27534-X
Thanks for the reference and the quotes, e.g.
"The humans lived by impulses and instincts and animal intuitions. Few
of them entertained thoughts. And since they had no thoughts they had
no questions, and therefore they had no need to come up with answers.
The wondered about nothing, questioned nothing. The world was made up
of only what they could see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Nothing was
hidden or unknown..."
JONATHAN adds
A lot of this is tied up with whether or not language is a prerequisite for
thought. Language is definitely an important tool, but anyone who has ever
watched a 1-year-old moving a cushion to stand on and reach what he wants
will know that one doesn't absolutely need language to figure things out.
Perhaps one of the most graphic demonstrations of emergent human reasoning
is an opening scene of 2001 where an ape-like human "realizes" that a wooden
club can serve as a weapon.
SAM
My point about the definition of thinking is that 'thinking' becomes a
derivative term, not a
definitive term; that is, whatever you make as the criterion for 'thinking'
is the true criterion
for distinguishing between levels. (If you say X-thinking is at level 2,
Y-thinking is at level 3,
Z-thinking is at level 4 then the true criterion for the difference between
levels 3 and 4 is that
between Y and Z, not between 'thinking' and 'not-thinking'. So for Pirsig,
the criterion of the
fourth level isn't "thinking" or even "intellect", it is "the manipulation
of symbols, derived from
language, which stand for patterns of experience, in the brain").
I'm working on something a bit more substantial about this....
JONATHAN
Sam, I agree with the first part. What you are saying is that thinking can
be applied in different disciplines e.g. physics vs. sociology.
I'm less sure I agree with the second part - which is more a question of how
to define thinking i.e. "thinking about thinking". Isn't this what we call
philosophy?
Jonathan
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 : Sun Jul 06 2003 - 08:16:26 BST