[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mary (it's week-end and I have the time to write and post-it)

9 Jan. u wrote

> 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.

Paul Turner participated from the early 2000 and till about 2005 (I 
believe) he was the most intelligent defender of the orthodox "mind-
intellect" (I call) and - consequently - the most persistent critic of the 
SOL (intellect = the S/O distinction) but that does not help ;-)  I like to 
believe that he quit as Pirsig in the said letter forcefully rejects the 
"orthodox" 4th level and - inadvertently or not - confirmed the S/O .... 
before he as his wont is to start anew on a non-S/O "oriental" intellect. 

The letter is found at:

http://www.moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html


> I started rereading Lila for the first time in 10 years just the other
> night.  I am on Page 37 of the Bantam paperback.  Yes, I am a slow
> reader, and also, my job prevents me from having much free time to do
> anything. Someday, someone will invent software that is smart enough
> to fix itself. At which time I will no longer have a job.  There will
> be a day when this happens to most of us.  It has already happened to
> many.  Cloud Computing is bad news for those of us in the computer
> field.  Anyway, so far in the book, everything is an object lesson in
> the (not yet revealed) definition of the Social level.  A good place
> to start.
> 
> 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_.  Why is it so hard for many to see that the
> Intellectual level has _nothing_ to do with IQ, thinking, or thinking
> about thinking?  That set of patterns has been there to one degree or
> another from the very start.  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?

Agree 120 %, this is the much said "intelligence fallacy" (confusing 
the intellectual level with thinking) there is thinking around even at the 
biological level. Heck thinking or intelligence IS biological, but has 
been adopted by the upper levels for their purpose.. 

> As I see it the S/O split has existed from time immemorial.  My dog
> understands that she is different from the dog food she is eating, and
> me - who scratches her behind her ears.  

Please Mary not these ridiculous objections.The biological level 
naturally has a self/not self distinction - the immune system is built on 
it - and your dog may have some social rudiment (still in biology's 
service) so it may have a sense of "personhood". The S/O distinction 
is something infinitely more advanced, namely the notion of an 
OBJECTIVE reality that the SUBJECT can fathom the workings of 
/science) This however is/was the end product of what began as 
described (as the emergence of SOM) in ZAMM.   

> No, she does not recognize herself in a mirror, but you gotta remember
> that dogs "see" the world mainly in terms of scent.  They only see in
> black, white, and red (handy to see blood if you are a carnivore, I
> think).  When she looks at herself in the mirror, there are no smells
> coming back to her. Same if I show her a picture of a dog. In her
> world these things have no value, because they do not smell like the
> thing they represent.  So much of science is homo-centric.  The mirror
> test somebody mentioned is a prime example.  IMO, this is
> pseudo-science, ripe for starting a religion around, as all
> pseudo-science is.  

Yes, yes, but even though some animals may have a sense of self in 
the social sense (an ape knows it's itself in a mirror) it's light-years 
from the above sketched intellectual subject/object realization. But as 
you say the smell sense plays a huge role there is the olfactory 
(smell) brain, i.e. a separate brain layer relegated to that particular 
sense, and my assertion is that animals think by way of sense 
impressions  - for instance re.dogs - smell plays an enormous role.. 
This is intelligence's first - biological - stage  

> The S/O split did not start with Aristotle.  He was an individual with
> a name, among a group of other individuals with names.  Any situation
> where naming is involved indicates that the S/O split is long
> entrenched. Wouldn't you agree? 

We must not enter into these social personhood stuff regarding 
intellects subject/object - think more of it as the mind/matter - 
distinction. It's - as said - another existential level. 

> The S/O split began in the Biological level, serves an essential
> purpose, and is a very necessary pattern of value if you want to get
> through the day.  It works.  If I am one with the Universe (i.e., the
> Universe is me and I am it), why not try to position my car in the
> exact same location in space and time as your car?  I believe this is
> otherwise known as a car wreck. 

No, not THE S/O which is MOQ's intellectual level!

> There has been an ongoing low-level disagreement between you and
> Marsha about her "Wooly headed" meanderings into Buddhism.  I agree,
> though likely not for the same reasons you do.  IMHO, these "moon
> meanderings" are nice, but are not useful to me.  I cannot use any of
> Marsha's statements to assist me with solving a computer problem,
> getting my son to do his homework, or cooking dinner.

Low-level? Well that there is "social" elements (ego-promotion) I don't 
deny, however when something seems woolly to me I say so, and the 
quasi-buddhist notion of concepts - language - as the big bad wolf is 
what irks me the most, as if there is a DQ which is destroyed by the 
MOQ and something else than MOQ's DQ.  

> Mary's definition of the Intellectual Level based on Lila:  It is the
> pattern of values which hold seeking the truth above all preconceived
> notions and strongly held beliefs.  It is the pattern of value that
> takes the personal ego out of the equation.  The Intellectual level
> values finding the truth - even if it turns out that you are wron

OK, I go along with all this. Intellect's OBJECTIVE attitude 
automatically leads to skepticism which is its hallmark.
Must we start on square one each time?

Bodvar