[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[KAYE PALM-LEIS]

Ron and others,

> Ron:
> Bo has no tolerence for anyone elses views which contradict his own
> what he has is blind persistence of his own views and beliefs which he
> asserts at every opportunity. I think you confuse the two.

Mati: The issue is that Bo sincerely believes he has the tiger by the
tail, but others have different opinions.   He asserts in the best way
he knows how to try to correct the mispreception of their own view of
intellect and others try to correct his view. Frankly I would never
had the stamina to share his perspective for as long.  You might be
right perhaps it is his perseverance that should be better noted.

> Ron:
> Read all of Platos works and you would find the same, the deconstruction
>  of what we think we "know" discourses on the meaning of terms.

Mati: I read with interest the Introduction about the translation and
interpretation of the Plato's symposium.  I am clearly aware that
precise understanding of what Plato or any of the other great
philosophers have shared is a serious challenge of meaning of a
language long ago in a context that representative of that time. I
have thought about how our perspective from 2500 years after the fact
could possibly afford us the right to make some bold declarations such
as SOL today.  Here I rely to some extent to Pirsig himself as Phedrus
who was better qualified to scrutinized those works and based on some
of the conclusions he makes about what he found in ZAMM.

> Mati:
> I realize it seems to some totally nuts that a concept and value such
> as intellect did not magically assert itself until Aristotle's wrestle
> with the issue of reality and gives us the s/o split, however the act
> of consciously thinking, which some of you have proposed as intellect,
> is as old as the dawn of mankind.
>
> Ron:
> Thats because the distinction lies in the cultural meaning and
> understanding of the term. The s/o split is an assumption drawn
> from Aristotles work "Physics" by the thinkers of the middle ages
> during the decline of the Roman empire. "metaphysics"
> Aristotles lecture notes on first philosophy, his theory of meaning,
> is based on the syllogism in the face of a relativistic flux of
> experience.
> "Intellect" in the context of general human experience as a species
> is as old as the dawn of mankind, infact, it's the distiguishing
> characteristic that seperates our species from others. "Intellect"
> defines us as what we recognize as distinctly human.

Mati: Point taken, and yes we have and understanding of SOM which
largely, I believed is credited to Pirsig (but certainly many other
have wrestled with the s/o split and intrepretation.  Though when I
have read from other philosophers such as Dewey I note that he
wrestles with what we understand as SOM and intellect. Granted there
is issues of going from Aristotle to Prisig to Bo and thinking we are
going to understand intellect as a specific value pattern.  Certainly
there is the risk that path that Bo is suggesting could be questioned
on the validity of what we think we know that happened 2500 years ago.
 But I feel reasonable comfortable that the stone that was cast so
long ago as SOM has rippled to our shores to what we understand as
intellect.  There is are times I sit and wonder if Bo has it all
wrong, every doubt and rational concern has been addressed to my
satisfaction with a sense of reason.  I like to believe I have some
high standards to accept such a bold and controversial conclusion such
as SOL.  Your point that intellect is as old as the dawn of mankind is
potentially misleading.  Our use of language to sustain our social
values has been around since that dawn.  Intelligence derived from
that development of the social level is what separates us from other
species and the development of intellect separates yet one step
beyound..  Again I allude to Pirsig letter to Paul which suggest that
intellect likely occurred around the time of the Early Greeks though
specific historical pinpointing is difficult according to him.  Am I
missing something, your statement seems as odds with him.  Perhaps
there is a level missing in which many feel this "thinking" as
intellect should be addressed, but I would suggest not.


> Mati:
> I will share from Pirsig letter to
> Paul Turner....
> He says, ..... " and it seems to me the
> greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is
> confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no
> corresponding particular experience and which behave according to
> rules of their own."
>
> Ron:
> I think the key lies in the Pragmatic statement:
> "the greatest meaning that may be given"
> "meaning".....to the concept of the intellectual level.
> Which he asserts, is the origin of the meanings our
> culture holds today.

Mati: But our culture today holds so many meanings both socially and
intellect(ually).  You suggest the statement is Pragmatic, practical
to what end?  Certainly not to clarifying what intellect is.  Again my
concern is that your statement is way too broad to hold any true
meaning.  If we agree that there are both social and intellect values
that are distinctively different then hows does your definition
exclude social values and for that matter anything we think of.


> Mati:
> I will share again that with the ancient Greeks something special
> happened.  They questioned reality as never before.  Thales,
> Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Anaxagoras and others
> questioned the nature of reality.  They experimented with abstract
> ideas that tried to explain the world/reality as never before.
> Ron:
> This is quite an assumption, they are the only written records
> which our culture has found and they are rather limited
> who knows what was held in the library of alexandria that did
> not survive. Who knows what intellectual achievements the ancients
> held... certainly not you or any of us.

Mati: Again you exercising a legitimate critism about what do we
really know about what these folks really had to say and what they
really thought.  Maybe intellect as a value pattern existed before
there wasn't a language that truely could convey intellect, but I
doubt that.  What we know is based on what little we do know. Maybe
Aristotle read something that lead him to s/o that was perhaps a well
established basis of understanding of reality.  Then I think you could
make the assertion that perhaps that author was the father of
intellect.  But just like Pirsig is the father of MoQ, we crown
Aristotle as father of SOM. There are historians who make there living
to provide us with the best understanding of who these people were and
what they thought.  I have to put some trust in what they have to
offer under the research methodologies that guide them.  I don't feel
that there is a conspiracy to misled us in what they say.  Certainly I
won't be dedicating my life to learning ancient Greek texts to exact
the similar interpretation.  So when I read or hear about there work I
try to interpret meaning using Bo's SOL and I find it a very useful
tool understand what is going on.


> Ron:
> If you and Bodvar actually read the complete works of Plato
> and Aristotles metaphysics, you may actually gain some insight
> into the pile of generalized assumptions you are making about their work.

Mati: Perhaps in my life time I will, and perhaps I will find the
nugget of thinking that will sink the SOL ship.  But the limited
amount I do read only seems to bolsters what Bo is trying to say. I
can't just come to this conclusion time and time again and completely
reject Bo's premise.  I have been very open to the possiblity that Bo
could be wrong.  But up to this limited point I don't see it.

> The s/o split was created over thousands of years of misinterpretaion
> and assumptions which manifested in 19th century victorian concepts.

Mati: Again the information we have is the best that we got.  Perhaps
in the future there will be a better intrepretaion of these works but
until then I think we are obligated to use what we have to the best
end.

> Ron:
> I suggest we all become alittle bit more well read on the subject if fist fights
> are to be avoided.
>
> I'll bring the wine

Mati: That is what the drink is for, to relax our mood and help us be
more be more at ease. However if there is a book you recomend please
let me know.

Sincerely,
Mati