[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[KAYE PALM-LEIS]

Ron and others,

> Ron:
> It most certainly does Our definition of what the term "intellectual"
> means is central to his thesis, and that origin is in Greek history
> distinguished by deductive reasoning, analytic, syllogism and logic,
> what western cultures understanding is predicated on. It's useful
> in terms of the common understanding of it's meaning, useful
> in the explaination of his 4 levels of static quality, useful in making
> the distinctions in its fallacies, logic traps and limitations of this common
> understanding.

Mati: Deriving meaning from experience has been around since man
beginning.  That was the in part the basis for all religions, to
provide meaning for the world around us and our questions that failed
to have answers.  Religions used, some might suggest, a false logic
that mystical being greater than our existence was responsible for all
that we experience.  The ten commandments are a tremendous
accomplishment that utilized reasoning and analytic consideration of
the social fabric it was intended to serve.  Again you seem to wish to
ignore Pirsig's more recent letter to Paul that suggests that
intellect likely came into being around the time of the early Greeks?
Again I point out, "deductive reasoning, analytic, syllogism and
logic" hallmarks of what you consider as intellect "existed" before
the Greeks, however it served the master at the social level.  After
the s/o split it serves only itself and mankind, not beholden to the
social level.

> Mati:
>  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.
>
> Ron:
> It excludes it by exercising meaning and definition, easy as looking up the term
> "intellectual".

Mati: My parents gave me a dictionary at the age of five for
Christmas, Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary. It is old and
tattered and a prized possession. Heck I will do you one better and
look up intellect. "The power of the mind to grasp ideas and
relations, and to exercises a dispassionate reason and rational
judgement; reason"  Before you do a cartwheel in the name of "got you"
let me suggest a couple of things. First as definitions go it is ok as
a definition of a general word used in our language but for a
definiton, in terms of a discussion of defining a metaphysical level
in Pirsig's it has 2 immediate short falls. First I suggest that the
dictionary was written (1970) before MoQ was published (not that one
published today wouldn't say the same thing) and clearly a definition
with metaphysical implications would be subordinate to SOM or its
fallout. Secondly, note it talks about "Dispassionate reason"
separating the biological function of emotions. It does not separate
the values or ideas that origin is either social or intellect. It
takes all ideas, social or intellectual because there was no other
consideration, reality defined in 1970 only had only a SOM basis,
there was no other basis. One level will dominates the next and will
use the value of the lower level to serve its own purpose, in terms of
intellect that includes all the social values so long it can dominate
it by reason.  My hope is that we can accept Pirsig premise that there
are four distinctive separate levels. It is that this point that SOM
is arrested for the purposes of a greater understanding of the world
offered by MOQ, otherwise we have SOM on some quasi steroids that
looks good but does nothing different than the old SOM.

> Ron:
> Useful within a context, which is just re asserting what Pirsig is already saying
> save that SOL makes the same blunder as SOM...that it takes itself as THE
> truth..Aristotle never had such a theory of reality, or truth in fact he questioned the
> use of engaging in such an activity, his focus was on meaning ..not
> any notion of reality as it was understood as relative and
> changing.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Mati: SOL, SOM, MOQ are all truths. Very few things are absolute
truths, and certainly metaphysical truths are not absolute.
Metaphysical truths are the best handle on truth we have until
something better comes along.  Pirsig in ZAMM challenges the assertion
that SOM has a handle on defining all reality by throwing the Quality
monkey wrench into the works. In Lila he gives us MOQ a new basis by
which the truth of reality is improved.  Its weak point, IMHO, is
Pirsig defining of intellect in which Bo's offers SOL as a fix, one
that I think works.  As to your point about Aristotle you are probably
right, I am guessing he was just looking for a better mean of
understanding the world rationally and not to unseat the social level
as a dominate force.  By doing so he inadvertent found the s/o
stepping stone to the next level.


> Ron:
> Certainly for they are using the same common understanding of the terms
> plus the belief in an absolute/ultimate truth/reality that you share with them
> it fits the model already in your head and as Pirsig points out one then
> sees what they understand in the way they understand it and as James
> notes that new ideas are grafted onto old concepts and are kept on the
> basis of how well they are adapted to an existing body of beliefs.

Mati: Heck I will again do you one better with the great philosopher,
Simon and Garfunkel, "A man chooses to see what he wants to see and
disregards the rest." (The Boxer) I have been painfully aware of this
point.  I have over the past, hmmm.., almost ten years been so aware
of so many folks who have been critical of Bo's premise, including
Pirsig.  I have wondered when Bo and I will get our excommunication
communication from the MOQ family for outright heresy.  But I believe
that Bo has found the foothold idea that bolsters MOQ to the next
level.  I also with advancing age of 43 or 44 (I lost count after 21)
know that I don't know everything and perhaps this SOL idea could be
infact a stupid goose chase.  But also I have learn we need to find
ideas that enhance our understanding about life and its meaning. For
almost the past ten years SOL has done that for me.

>
> Mati:
> 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.
>
> Ron:
> Thats because Bo is right within a context but wrong within another
> in reference to Pirsigs work. The parts he does not understand
> do not fit with his model he ridicules and throws out, dismisses it
> as foolishness and countless other ad hominems. Bo has a very anayltical
> logical "intellectual" mind and simply can not accept a system
> with out it satisfying these conditions, he believes them to be the
> fundemental constituants of reality.

Mati: You could be right.  There was once an American Congressman who
offered advice to a new Congressman, to "never suggest you know the
motivations of others."  I think Bo found the framework of MoQ as
impressive as all of us.  But early on it was clear that Intellect was
a point to be reckoned with.  It seems that Pirsig himself struggled
with this and in his letter to Paul tries to provide some
reconciliation.  Interesting enough I think Pirsig himself has fallen
to the issue you suggest Bodvar is guilty of, trying to defining "a
system with out it satisfying these conditions, he believes them to be
the fundamental constituants of reality."  I have had the privilege to
meet, listen and read Pirsig.  The problem is related to where Pirisig
sits as the engineer/architec of this impressive metaphysical
framework called MOQ.  It stands before us in vast sea of knowledge
and understanding of mankind. Few things can make that claim.  But
there is a flaw in the understanding of intellect. I believe to some
degree he acknowledges it.  The problem is what solution has he to
offer.  I think we have not considered how risky of a situation this
has been for Pirsig. Potentially what he offers for an explanation
could sink the MOQ boat. To narrow of an answer and potentially many
might not believe or dismiss MOQ all together.  To broad of a
definition than MOQ is watered down to mean nothing. In his letter to
Paul Turner he shoot down the middle of the road and gives us, "the
skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding
particular experience and which behave according to rules of their
own." He tried to play it safe but I think fell short.  But here is
his saving grace he writes, "Perhaps you can pass all this along to
the Lila Squad with the caveat that this is not a Papal Bull, as some
would have it, or just plain bull, as others will see it, but merely
another opinion on the subject that it is hoped will help."  I think
it has help in the respect that gives the opportunity to share our
opinions and perhaps gives us licence to think and improve on what he
has offered.


> Ron:
> There is nothing wrong with the translation or the information but
> the assumptions which are drawn from them from a limited
> point of view. When we build our arguement and our personal
> understanding and world view on second, third and even fourth
> hand assumptions based on limited points of view on second hand
> interpretations, we build them on general assumptions.

Mati: So then all assumptions are built on a house of cards?  I think
though we are all are guilty on building on general assumptions. I
take your point well that we all can do better in building our
understanding and broading our understanding.  But also too I think
there are times when we find a piece of experience or knowledge that
fits perfectly in the puzzle of understanding life we need not ignore
it. I think it is worth examining it, studying it, and see what we
learn.  I welcome all criticisms and looking at the way the puzzle
piece might not fit or how to make the piece fit better or .... maybe
there is a better fitting piece.


> Ron:
> If we are going to talk metaphysics I suggest and I'm being sincere,
> that we all read Aristotles metaphysics. Could'nt hurt..

Well this morning I found my copy I picked up a couple of years ago. I
will give it a gander.
Thanks,
Mati