On 12 Jun 2000, at 15:16, 3rdWavedave wrote:
> As I said before, " it is very difficult, if not impossible, to
> clearly separate where the intellectual construct of a pattern leaves
> off and the [social, biological or inorganic] pattern itself begins.
> In a thread last March we discussed a response by Pirsig to a question
> about intellectual patterns by Ant McWatt that at first glance
> resembles a "dog chasing it tail."
> Anyway,
> here's Pirsig:
"The section in chapter 3 (in ZMM) about gravity points out
that the body of knowledge we call science is in fact
subjective. The law of gravity exists only in the minds of
modern-day people, who can change this law any time new
information shows that a higher quality law of gravity can
be constructed.....both the "law of gravity" and "gravity" are
intellectual static patterns, but gravity (when you take the
quotation marks off) is said, in a very high quality interpretation
of experience, to be an external reality."
Among these patterns is the intellectual pattern that says
"there is an external world of things out there which are
independent of intellectual patterns".
That is one of the highest quality intellectual patterns
there is. And in this highest quality intellectual
pattern, external objects appear historically before
intellectual patterns...But this highest quality intellectual
pattern itself comes before the external world, not after, as is
commonly presumed by the materialists..
(Correspondence from Pirsig to McWatt)
Calling Wavedave, Ram and the World.
I took the liberty to edit the Pirsig quotation so that it stands apart
from our writings.
You continued:
> But after you read and reread this you finally come to the conclusion
> that until there is an intellect there are no patterns of value, and
> no need of them. All is just experience as Cory aptly put this way:
No sooner have I "scolded" Marco for invoking the subject ghost,
before (you show that) the master himself does it, but thanks
anyway for bringing this quotation into the discussion. I remeber it
well.
> So when people assert that language as a social level pattern , is the
> " machine code" which enabled the intellectual level to emerge I am
> not so sure. If "one of the highest quality intellectual patterns" is
> that "there is an external world of things out which are independent
> of [my or your] intellectual patterns",
What you speak about here is Intellect-out-of-Soiciety and a
"correct" quote would have read:
"Intellect is THE pattern that says 'there is an external
world of things out there which are independent
of SOCIAL patterns'".
Because this is what took place. The social reality was a world of
unity between the individual and other (external reality) A world of
emotions that could work changes to everything. A magical world,
a world of despair and bliss - something that Cory's eminent texts
demonstrate so clearly. This world was lost - and another won -
when the would-be-intellectuals started to ask for what was
independent "...imperishable in the affairs of men..." as P. put it in
ZaMM.
But what P. (of 1999 corresponding with McWatt) talks about is
something else. He does not say so, but anything independent of
Intellect must be above Intellect. Look, the highest level is the
"independent" one as long as it lasts.Life was independent of
Matter (in the MOQ sense) until Society became independent of
Life ...aso. Speaking of an "external world" independent of Intellect"
is a lapse back to SOM's mind/matter, but adding - as Pirsig does -
that this is the HIGHEST intellectual pattern hints to a "macine
code" for something beyond Intellect.
And Ram, didn't you spot something by saying:
> Can we tell the direction evolution is heading?
> Perhaps it has something to do with technology. So much intellectual
> energy is devoted to it's creation (which could not have manifested
> through any other level) that I'm prone to suspect evolution has got
> something up it's sleeve for us there...
A new technology may be the result, but in my opinion it is first
one single overwhelming idea - the Quality Idea!!!!
3WD again:
> it just may well be that way
> back when the urge to communicate this concept of reality to another
> was the event that enabled the birth of post-grunt language. Maybe
> even the grunt ones!
Well put, but "this concept of reality.....
> that "there is an external world of things out which are independent
> of [my or your] intellectual patterns",
...was NOT what the stone-agers grunted about, rather
independece from rites, chants, sacrifices and invoking of
spirits....etc Something that finally brought about the intellectual
reality we are so submerged in that WE are can't see the wood
because of the trees.
> Now if you wish to say that development of
> languages ,in the broadest sense including all forms of sense
> communication, enables the intellectual level to become dominant, I
> would agree.
Have we ever discussed verbal (oral?) contra written language
which are two different realms. I think the latter is the Society-
Intellect isthmus proper, while the oral variety disappears too far
back into Society....almost merges with "body language".
> A platypus to make the point. Helen Keller. Did she have
> an intellect prior to her learning a language? Take a look at Mark
> Butler's excellent post on Bloom's "names for intellectual skill
> patterns" and ask if she was devoid of all of items in the first six
> catagories until she had a language. I don't think so.
Good. It was when "water" was WRITTEN in her hand she had her
revelation, but then she was deaf and blind of course.
Everything IMO
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST