[MD] Intellectual and Social

[Joseph Maurer]

On 1/7/10 9:30 AM, "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Steve said about his idea:
> It comes from Wim. Remember him?
> 
> Matt:
> Yes, I do: Wim Nusselder.  We started writing here at just
> about the same time.  I liked him.
> 
> Steve said:
> I'm not sure that it makes sense to say that the train of
> thought needs social patterns to intercede. Intellectual
> patterns are social through and through by the "mythos
> over logos" argument.
> 
> Matt:
> Heh, well, I think pretty much everybody misunderstood
> what I was saying here.  I wasn't saying, as I think Mary
> said and everybody jumped on board in thinking that's
> what I was saying, that social patterns control intellectual
> patterns--I was trying to identify a way of thinking about
> how they interact.  The question is: since inferential
> thinking can continue on indefinitely, how is it that we
> stop?  Habits of satisfaction, conclusions to problems we
> are pleased with, was my answer--these habits take on
> something we could call "authority."
 
Hi Matt and all,
 
Joe

When I ponder the paradigm of evolution as proposed by Pirsig of Inorganic,
Organic, Social, Intellectual, I want to apply it to the massacre at
Jonestown where they all, at the promptings of Jim Jones, drank the poisoned
cool-aid and died.  This seems a social/organic conflict.  I do not think
that Jim Jones was moral in his suggestion, even though he was the leader in
that community.  It would have to be put into an Intellectual/social
template for anyone who doubted Jones to void his participation in that
horror. There are no ready arguments for such a withhold in a social
setting!
 
For myself, I view all evolution above gravityDQ, and instinctDQ of the
first levels to be an evolution in consciousnessDQ.  In such a paradigm one
level stands out.  The level called the Emotional level in esoteric
literature.
 
IMHO Emotions are DQ/undefined consciousness and never graduate to the
complete DQ/SQ social configuration of authority. My expression of emotions
is always undefined to another and I am told to ³get a grip².  In such a
bind emotions cannot be seen in a defined social level.
 
Using this as the jump off point I prefer to see evolution in a seven stage
hierarchy modeled on the musical scale rather than a 4 stage mix-up.
 
DO (inorganic)-gravity
RE (Organic--reproduction by the division of a single cell)-instinct 1
MI (Organic‹reproduction by combination of a male sperm, cell, female
egg-cell),
(Half-tone barrier shock provided by cosmic influences)-instinct 2
FA (Social level)-Consciousness-self awareness 1
SOL (Intellectual level)-Coonscious 2
La (Higher social level-conscious 3
Ti (Higher Intellectual level) conscious 4
(Unable to cross the half-tone barrier evolution stops. Higher beings like
planets, suns, galaxies, and universes are indefinable.)
 
Actions at La and Ti are usually called heroic when questioned. Not too many
heroes around. How evolution, levels in existence, is created or defined is
a question for another day.
 
IMHO Evolution in tied to levels in EXISTENCE.

> Since the patterns at different levels _must_ interact,
> people do need an answer to that question.  They do
> need to specify how the levels interact.

Interact suggests conscious behavior rather than merely collision.  Gravity
accounts for all mechanical interaction.  Motion as an interaction is
problematic unless DQ consciousness is accepted as motivation.  Desire is
either DQ or SQ. Mechanical/conscious are words I have heard that are used
to describe actions along with right/wrong.
 

> The thing to particularly bear in mind is how you balance
> the opposite philosophical intentions of the
> mythos-over-logos argument and the "distinctness"
> clause in Pirsig's articulation of the levels.  The former is
> reductionistic--where Platonic philosophers wanted to
> draw a big, bright sharp line between logos and mythos,
> anthopologists were saying, "Nah, nah--not so fast."
> The latter clause is anti-reductionistic--these specified
> levels are different beasts for definite and specifiable
> reasons.  It's defining the specification we've been
> having trouble with all these years.
> 
> In the set-up I offered, I was suggesting how the
> intellectual interacts with the social, and then the social
> with the biological level, to thus produce action from a
> thought (remembering Pirsig's claim that you can't leap
> levels).

Imho Moral is when actions follow the evolutionary description of levels in
existence.  Using the motive force for actions from a wrong level of
evolution highlights the mechanical perspective more than a conscious
evolutionary perspective. Motion is an act of the possible with the emphasis
on possible.  Morally I don¹t want to be able to jump on my horse and ride
off in all directions.
 
> I don't have any particular stake in this game, and so I
> have no other thoughts, except that I would urge that
> everyone who thinks that need to understand the
> Metaphysics of Quality take it as a necessary piece that
> articulation of how--in a definite kind of way--the levels
> interact with each other.  That's what I don't think Pirsig
> ever did, and it's led a lot of confusion (and/or creative
> interpretation like the above).
> 
> Matt

Thank you, Matt!  I hope mechanical/conscious is a small way to distinguish
interactions.

Joe 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/