[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Mary,

Mary:
> I do not know who Paul Turner is, and I do not know why Pirsig wrote to him,
> nor when.  Perhaps you can point me to these letters?  Based on the snippets
> you quote, though, I am disturbed.  He appears to be watering down the
> original MoQ.  I hate to see it.


Steve:
You can find the letter posted at MOQ.org

He attempted to clarify the intellectual level, but I think he was
unsuccessful.

Mary:

> Early on, Pirsig mentions that he considered naming the MoQ the "Metaphysics
> of Value".  I kind of wish he had stuck with that, at least as far as it
> relates to the levels.  IMHO, the difference between the levels lie not in
> their mechanical differences, but in what they _value_.


Steve:
The levels don't value, they ARE value. Intellectual, social, etc are
labels for types of patterns of value.

Mary:
> Why is it so hard
> for many to see that the Intellectual level has _nothing_ to do with IQ,
> thinking, or thinking about thinking?

Steve:
You are correct that the intellectual level is not to be understood in
terms of higher or lower IQ, but since Pirsig explained the intellect
in LC as "simply thinking" it is clear that it actually does have to
do with thinking. Intellectual patterns are patterns of thought or
habits of mind with the caution that if you are thinking of thinking
as applying to worms then that is not what Pirsig means by "simply
thinking." Thinking for Pirsig is the manipulation of symbols that
stand for patterns on experience. Patterns of such manipulation is
what Pirsig means by intellectual patterns.

Mary:
> That set of patterns has been there
> to one degree or another from the very start.

Steve:
Again, that is a misunderstanding of what Pirsig means by "thinking."

Mary:
> To argue with me about this
> requires you to convince me that the people who wrote the old testament were
> of a different species.  There is plenty of "intellect" in the Biological
> level.  There is plenty of "intellect" in computer systems today too.  Are
> computers operating on the Intellectual level?

Steve:
Your objection as usual comes from teh fact that you are using the
term intellect in a different way than how Pirsig uses the term.

The bit that follows about the S/O split extending back to animals is
one that not even Bo will agree with. Pirsig never used the phrase
"S/O split" as far as I know.

Best,
Steve