Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Sat, 27 Sep 1997 11:55:16 +0100
Doug, Jason, Magnus
I totally and absolutely 100% agree. Definitions would be useful. In any
theory obviously defining the parameters is the first thing that has to
be done.
The point I was making was not that I don't realize definitions would be
useful but that it is IMPOSSIBLE to define the different levels. Pirsig
explained them by giving examples because it was the only possible way
he could explain them. (In the 11 years that P spent writing LILA do you
not think it may also have occurred to him to come up with some
definitions? I mean he is a pretty smart guy after all)
The reason it is impossible is because a definition is itself an
intellectual concept. In other words a definition is an intellectual
pattern of value. Social and biological values are fundamentally
different from intellectual values so they cannot be described in the
same terms as intellectual values.
To try to explain social and biological values intellectually is like
trying to listen to a painting or look at a song. You can't do it. It's
nonsense even to try. Paintings are visual and they can only be
experienced by that sense which values visual value, ie sight. It's the
same with music. The only way you can know what music is is by listening
to it.
I will now demonstrate that biological patterns of value cannot be
explained intellectually.
In an earlier post I gave the example of the taste of chocolate. The
sense of taste is biological. (Pirsig states this clearly in SODV)
Consequently the taste of chocolate can only be understood biologically.
You cannot explain it intellectually.
I propose a test. Give me a definition of the taste of chocolate without
using examples or referring to the taste of anything else. We will then
give this definition to a third party and see if they can identify what
the flavor is.
(Please note that it is the *taste* not the chemical composition or
appearance of chocolate. Not everything that tastes like chocolate
actually is chocolate. )
Taste is a sense. Taste is something we experience. It is not something
that we "understand" in an intellectual sense but we "understand" it
perfectly well in a biological sense. The taste of chocolate is an
example of a biological pattern of value that cannot be defined
intellectually.
The Dusenberry section of LILA explains why social patterns cannot be
defined intellectually. Dusenberry insisted that the only way to
understand Indian culture was to become a member of that culture. ie
social value can only be "understood" through social experience.
BUT just because we can't give definitions it doesn't mean we can't come
to a general agreement on what each of the levels refers to.
>From SODV
Inorganic values: substance, gravitation, entropy
Biological values: touch, sight, hearing, smell, taste, life, lust,
greed
Social values: family, church, government, religion,
Intellectual values: theology, science, philosophy, mathematics, truth,
freedom of opinion.
Platt's school curriculum approach (sorry but these come under the
category of examples, not definitions):
>
> INORGANIC: Physics, chemistry
> BIOLOGICAL: Biology.
> SOCIAL: History.
> INTELLECTUAL: English, math.
I find it very hard to believe that any reasonable person wouldn't agree
that each MoQ level represents a different "type" of phenomenon. Even if
we can't agree on the definition of each "type" we can at least agree
that the types exist and we can agree on which phenomena belong to which
type.
Diana
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST