[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[MarshaV]

Mati, this is also an excellent post.   



On Jan 8, 2010, at 8:45 PM, KAYE PALM-LEIS wrote:

> 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
> 

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...