From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 09:22:02 GMT
David M & Paul and All.
28 Nov. Paul wrote to DM who had written:
> I see the idea that intellect implies only human 'abstract thought' as
> anthropocentric. Nature produces purposeful intellect in man and it is
> anthropocentric to think that the rest of nature is not full of
> different forms of it.
> Paul:
> Then intellect becomes fairly meaningless as a definition of one
> static level. I would rewrite your sentence as: "Quality produces
> purposeful intellectual patterns in man and the rest of nature is full
> of different forms of Quality."
.
David M is pointing to ONE aspect of the trouble with the original
"mind/thinking" definition of the intellectual level, namely that
INTELLIGENCE seems present far down into the static sequence - if
not all the way down. As it shows (from Pirsig's letter to Paul) this has
obviously begun to bother Pirsig too and he delivers the symbol-
manipulation definition without discarding the former.
He (Pirsig) shows that "thinking" (as such) is useless because it's all
over the place, even at the inorganic level. I would of course have
liked DM to read what is amassed on this issue since I launched the
SOLAQI idea, but it's useless: every newcomer is bent on re-inventing
the wheel...again and again.
The problem stems from wanting to make intellect a quasi-dynamic
level, while it supposed to be a static one (and as such easily defined)
The best example is Mark who thinks he does the MOQ a great
service with his crusade against this person's sober S/O intellect.
Mark may not understand the ramifications, but so does Scott who
sees that an intellect as thoughts (ideas) makes it dynamic and thus
unassimilated. Scott however wants no "mending", but that's another
matter.
These unassimilated concepts began with Pirsig's own "art level" and
has increased in number by people suggesting other phenomena like
"intuition", "meaning", "thinking", "truth", "God", "intelligence" ...there
are more, but I don't recall. Suggesting different metaphysics (similar
to the MOQ) based on these shows that they are different facets of the
Quality (gem) ...not undermining it.
If one (as a thought experiment) picked - say - intelligence as the new
"groundstuff" it might be instrumental to our understanding of the
MOQ because when one arrives at the "static intellectual intelligence"
level one would see that STATIC intelligence had to be different from
both "thinking" and "abstraction" (symbols) because these ARE
intelligence by definition.
So David M. your objections are valid, but we have been there and
into every nook and cranny of the MOQ during our (soon) seven years'
discussion. At times I have the impression that we have probed the
MOQ deeper than Pirsig himself ...and that Paul's "problem" is his
will to adjust to all utterings from one who knows no more any longer.
Right now he labours at the "symbol-manipulation" definition to fit - as
he did the "thought-definition", but it is in wain: Intellect is the SOM
(minus the 'M') It's the ONLY solution.
In my opinion
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 30 2003 - 09:23:58 GMT