Hi Focs: Bo was mostly talking to other folks in his assertions below, but
I've deleted everything but Bo for the sake of clarity. It'll be easier to
read and it'll look more like a conversation. You know...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: skutvik@online.no [SMTP:skutvik@online.no]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:08 AM
> To: moq_focus@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MF Intellectual level
>
>
>
> First a word from the oldster to thank David B, for his "Call to Bob"
> post. I have several times been struck by David's creativity (there's
> one post from around Roger's "Stand and be Counted" thread that I
> have been searching for....Dave you know which one, give me the
> date or a search word!) as well as actually reading Pirsig's work to
> find the relevant passages.
>
[David Buchanan] You're way too nice to me. Thanks. I hope you and
the other posters have some thoughts about all those things Bob said. The
post you refer to is not ringing any bells, except I recall a silly and
sassy subject heading I titled "Count and be Standed". That must have been
part of Roger's thread, but I'm only guessing and don't even remember what
it was about. I think some stuff I did in the MD titled "The hierarchy of
ideologies" is most relevant to this topic, if you're interested.
> The terms intellect and intelligence denotes two different things -
> moqwise seen, but Intellect (as SOM) never got those two sorted
> out, the spectre of "awareness" got into the way. Animals may
> display all sorts of abilities (just heard about an octopus who knew
> how to open screw lids of jars!), but they are "machines"
> programmed by instincts, not to speak of machines/computers that
> are just dispensers of zeros and ones....blah, blah, the SOM-
> sayers go on.
>
[David Buchanan] Its important to note that the MOQ's intellect is
not the same as SOM's intellect. Like Bob told me, SOM thinks that "ideas
and societies are a component of brains, not the other way around." I think
he's saying that the MOQ views brains as a component of society and
intellect, which is quite astonishing when you really think about that. I'm
not sure about the objections to "awareness". I don't think "awareness" is
outside the MOQ. Quite the opposite. You repeat this objection below...
>
> According to dictionaries 'intellect' is the power to reason while
> 'intelligence' is mental ability, but both has some inextricable link
> to awareness, the special human realm that according to SOM
> elevates us to demi-godlike status.
>
[David Buchanan] Well, I'd agree that SOM tends to elevate human
intelligence and there is the general idea that we humans are very special
creatures, but that's more of a mythological and religious thing, which is
much older than intellect. But awareness seems to be at the heart of the MOQ
and extends to every level and every pattern. The intellectual level is the
same as all the other levels in this respect, only more so.
> We must regard the pre-moq world as a reality where Intellect
> reigned - as SOM - without competition. It had no inkling of any
> levels in a MOQ sense, its mind-matter reality was all there was.
> Now - after Pirsig - we may regard Q-intellect as analytical reason
> (which IS freedom from social values) while "intelligence" - once the
> "mental" deadweight is jettisoned - are all the various lower levels -
> separate or compound ....including Intellect! (You will know that I
> regard the MOQ as beyond intellect).
>
[David Buchanan] Uh oh. I've some serious questions here. Pirsig's
intelligence is all the various lower levels? That smells too much like
solipsims to me. How about this? Each level has its own kind of
intelligence. And the intellecutal level, by definition, transcends and
INCLUDES all the previous levels. That's why brains are components of the
intellect. They're included. They're part of what it takes. Intellect
contains all the levels below it, Social values include biological and
inorganic patterns and so on. Its like concentric circles or concentric
spheres, or like a series of boxes. Everytime you open a box you'll see
another smaller box. And inside that smaller box is an even smaller one.
See? Intellectual level quality is just like all the other kinds of static
quality, only more so.
Also, I really don't see what you mean about the MOQ being beyond
intellect. There is the Mysticism, but that is reluctantly brought down to
the intellectual level because that's where philosophy and metaphysic is,
the intellectual level. Where else could it be?
>
> All levels are trying to dominate their underling, no exception re.
> Intellect's relationship with Society.
>
[David Buchanan] Mostly, I agree, but I don't think its quite that
hostile all the time. I mean, Pirsig points out the society, contrary to the
common assumptions of SOM, has liberated us from the demands of biological
necessity. He says that famous old quote, "Man is born free, yet everywhere
he is in chains" is just not right. Man is born in biological chains, whcih
social values help to unlock. It is the same with the relationship between
society and the intellect. In time, intellecual values will liberate nations
and cultures, improve them, and expand freedom even as they dominate
society. I know it seems contradictory, but that's just SOMe kind of
hangover.
> We have been on to this issue many times and I think we have
> reached some agreement about Q-intellect's rise to power. WW1
> was the turning point when intellectual value came to dominate
> Western culture, while its "coming of age" (when it started to
> challenge social value seriously) is what is described in ZaMM. It's
> emergence out of Society, however, stretches far back into the
> past.
>
[David Buchanan] I'm with you 100% here. In college I took a
year-long History course called "20th century Europe". The first half of the
class, which was every other day for 15 weeks and tons of work besides, was
entirely devoted to the CAUSES of World War One. By the time we started the
second half of the 20th century the war hadn't even begun. The point? WW I
is huge. In chapter 22 Pirsig talks at length about the period directly
after the war. He compares the events taking place then to the first sea
creature coming onto land. He's saying its a huge event in evolution and the
historical facts, as I understand them, do not contradict what Pirsig is
saying. Quite the opposite. As an historian, he's brilliant.
> Exactly. Even if intellect dominates our culture in a general way, it
> doesn't dominate the outlook of all individuals at all times. Social
> reality isn't gone, it's below the surface as strong as ever. However,
> once a person comes into political position, she or he has to start
> talking the correct lingo officially, while inwardly...
>
[David Buchanan] The offical lingo is known as "politically
correct" speech here in the U.S. It usually just means not being able to say
what you really mean. Its mostly a joke, but there is an interesting book
about the fad called "Dogmatic Wisdom" by Jacoby. And I think you're right.
There are lots of individuals only ape intellectual values outwardly, but
without any real love or appreciation inside. And there are plenty of
anti-intellectual types who proudly and openly mock intellectuals. Maybe
things are different in Norway, but my culture has an anti-intellectual
streak that's a mile wide. Even Canada is different than the U.S. in this
respect.
Thanks for your time.
Jethro Bodine
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST