To 3WD, Bo, Jonathan, Dan and group:
The only reasonable division that I can make between intellect and social is
to look at the values, attractors and evolutionary pressures that distinguish
the two. Intellectual patterns are ideas or concepts that are evaluated
based on the rules of logic, math and science. Roughly, these are:
1) Consistency -- with experience, within the theory and with other theories,
2) Simplicity,
3) Explanatory power,
4) Predictiveness, and
5) Falsifiability
You could also probably add measurability and 'objectivity', with the latter
term relating to the relative lack of social (non-intellectual) interference.
If we say it is so because we our parents/ king/ God etc says so, it is a
social theory. If we say it is so because this is the simplest, briefest,
most consistent, predicive and falsifiable explanation, then it is an
intellectual theory. Read W. James if you need more explanation. He explains
some of this when he discusses truth in "What Pragmatism Means."
In essence, intellectual patterns are concepts that are evaluated based upon
their values as concepts (ie simplified models of reality). Concepts have
been around for as far back as language itself -- and probably much further
than that! The difference though is that concepts were evaluated based only
upon their value to people and societies. There was no agreed upon
evaluation of ideas on the scale of succesful ideas. The great revolution
came about when concepts were also evaluated based upon their value as
concepts. Note that this is a recursive process -- to evaluate an idea based
upon its quality as an idea, with quality described as above. Modern science
involves theories that meet all the above criteria, as well as serving
society or man. And math in some cases goes beyond even serving man. Math
breakthroughs often are purely theoretical (some of these are subsequently
applied ).
Perhaps to summarize the Jonathan /Bo dialogue in terms of the topic of the
month. Intellect is the level of evaluating the quality of a metaphor based
its quality as a metaphor.
Which leads me to 3WD, quoting James:
"To be radical, an empiricism must neither admit into its constructions
any element that is not directly experienced, nor exclude from them any
element that is directly experienced. For such a philosophy , the
relations that connect experiences must themselves be experienced
relations, and any kind of relation experienced must be accounted as
'real' as anything else in the system. Elements may indeed be
redistributed, the original placing of things getting corrected, but a
real place must be found for every kind of thing experienced, whether
term of relation, in the final philosophic arrangement."
3WD adds:
"Returning to James, he subdivides "pure experience" [Q] into "percepts"
[DQ] and "concepts" [SQ] and the relationships between them. According
to James,"pure experience" is "concrete reality", percepts
are"perception(s) of reality" and concepts are 'abstract" theories, or
patterns of values describing or talking about that reality. Further
James maintains that the "relationship[s]" between the percepts and
concepts are give and take, they influence each other in various and
many ways."
Rog Responds:
You will probably recall I often quote James. I was encouraged to see you
bring him up in this conversation. But your summary has me completely
confused. James "pure experience' prior to conceptualization is DQ. Pirsig
says as much on pages 417 and 418.
In my readings of James, he divides concepts and percepts both out of pure
experience. Both are derived through the process of forming patterns of pure
experience. Percepts are those experiences that are subsequenltly classified
as coming from physical experience, while concepts are those experiences that
we (subsequently) attribute to memories or mental states.
I believe the proper interpretation is that pure experience can be
subsequently divided into percepts and concepts and that patterns of
experience can be combined into the physical and mental realms. Read the
second and third sections of "Does Conciousness Exist?' for a detailed
explanation of the above and tell me if you agree or not. I would love to go
into this in depth.
Back to 3WD:
"If "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
intellectual abstractions." and Dynamic Quality is something else, not"
direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
abstractions," -Then what are its qualities?"
ROG:
The answer is that you have confused Quality and DQ. Dq is the dynamic and
flowing reality of pure experience (Pirsig says so numerous times), and sq is
divided and static patterns derived from this experience. Quality is the
generic term for divided and undivided reality. Reality and Maya. Reality and
our concepts of reality. But in the end, of course, our concepts of reality
are part of reality. Maya is an illusion, and the intellectual knife is
degenerative.
3WD:
"And can you influence it? [DQ]
In James radical empiricism you can. I'm pretty sure in my reality, I
can too. Even if I can't, from a pragmatic perspective holding on to
that belief is good, true, and therefore a part of my reality.
Rog:
The illusion is that you and not-you are divided. Once you ask the free will
question, you are in the subject/object divided world of static boundaries.
You've already differentiated the undifferentiated continuum.
And finally back to Bo:
"I am a bit wary of the "preintellectual" term (from the early writings
of Pirsig) because it invokes a notion of all levels having to go
through a particularly mind-intellect phase before being manifest -
even Intellect itself! THAT is exactly the initial realization of
Phaedrus and the start of his new metaphysics ...that there is no
world before it is in someone's mind (the dreaded solipsism) and if
introduced in the MOQ makes it into a SOM-moq."
Rog:
Bo, the intellect does not invent reality. The intellect divides reality.
The intellect divides and combines pure experience into the dualism of
subject and object. Or into 4 levels. Reality does not need mind to be
"manifested" , but it sure needs mind to slice it and dice it. You seem to be
confusing reality and models-of-reality.
But I could be wrong.....
Rog
*****************************
"Northrop's name for Dynamic Quality is "the undifferentiated aesthetic
continuum." By "continuum" he means that it goes on and on forever. By
"undifferentiated" he means that it is without conceptual distinctions. And
by "aesthetic" he means that it has quality."
RMP in SODV
********************************
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST