[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[David Thomas]

Hi Bo,

> Hi Dave, good to see you again

Thanks. Not sure it's really all that good here. The ongoing fires consume
most of the space , smoke obscures almost everything, and if the air gets
unbreathable I'll have to head back outside.

> 13 Jan. you said::
>> [Dave]
>> It appears that the bulk of these discussions focusing on the social
>> and intellectual patterns have devolved into either banging on Pirsig,
>> or on one another, or both.
> 
>> Is there a middle way? Naw, bang¹n fun! It¹s the intellect¹s modus
>> operandi.
>  
>> In ZaMM ³intellect² is mentioned twice. First in the shim episode
>> early on when we read: "My own opinion is that the intellect of modern
>> man isn¹t that superior.² Then a little later when he became
>> disillusioned with Kant , moved to oriental philosophy and then
>> dropped out of Beneres in disgust and says: ³He had had the feeling of
>> escape from a prison of intellect, and now this was just more of the
>> prison again.²
> [Bo]
> Good idea to search ZAMM for the term "intellect" and "intellectual"
> Dave. The first example "...the intellect of modern man...etc." is a bit
> ambiguous as if there is an intellect of pre-modern man. i.e. that
> "intellect" is a thinking faculty. The second "...prison of intellect"
> however is more like what it's all about, namely REASON or SOM. In
> other words that intellect is NOT thinking itself , but a mode of thinking
> and that another mode is possible. Exactly what the SOL interpretation
> is about.
[Dave]
Whoa Bo! 
Before we jump off into my or your conclusions let's try to figure out what
RMP is saying and agree on that.

In order to facilitate that I cut and pasted each instance in both books in
order they appear into a single document. I have tried to keep enough
context (usually the paragraph or so) to aid interpretation. I will PM you a
copy if you want. What I am doing is reading the quote and then red lining
my comments underneath.

What I'm proposing is to kill two birds with one stone. First treat ZaMM as
MoQ-1. Treat Lila as MoQ-2. Then using just the one word "intellect" and
derivatives compare and contrast how he uses them in both places to see if
we can shed some light on the issue.

For instance first full quote in ZaMM:

[Pirsig]
"Pg 19: John nods affirmatively and I continue.
"My own opinion is that the intellect of modern man isn¹t that superior. IQs
aren¹t that much different. Those Indians and medieval men were just as
intelligent as we are, but the context in which they thought was completely
different. Within that context of thought, ghosts and spirits are quite as
real as atoms, particles, photons and quants are to a modern man. In that
sense I believe in ghosts. Modern man has his ghosts and spirits too, you
know."
"What?"
"Oh, the laws of physics and of logic‹the number system‹the principle of
algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so
thoroughly they seem real.
"They seem real to me," John says.
"I don¹t get it," says Chris.

[Dave]
My translation of what RMP is saying: The IQ, intelligence, and intellect
(regardless what these words mean) of modern man (you & me right now) are
not substantially different*  from those of medieval man, Indians in Montana
when he was there . And I'm pretty sure he would agree, Indians that lived
there at the time of medieval man.
*(Except ,as he says later, in the 'context of their thought' which has to
do with the differences in what their cultures consider "real")

Do we agree?

If we do your: "ambiguous as if there is an intellect of pre-modern man"
concern goes away.

RMP says humans have  these characteristics, qualities, (again regardless
what they mean)  back to at least  medieval times in both Europe and
America. If one understands and agrees with the biological evolutionary
theory of Darwin, even a little bit, this conclusion it not at all
surprising or unlikely.

Agreed?

An aside. (I think an important one) when the word "evolution" popped into
my mind above I decided to search both texts for its use. ZaMM (1) Lila (82)
A huge difference. In comparing and contrasting MoQ-1 and MoQ-2 "evolution"
is not used in the first  at all and is a significant part of the second.
Even though the many branches of evolutionary science have been making big
strides in last 50 years they still have not come up with  definitive
agreements between them on what, when, why, where, etc makes humans
different (or not) from all rest. And this is particularly the case of what
qualities developed in our human ancestors allowed them to emerge from
biological level. So the misunderstanding and discord here is in part
because of the lack of progress  and agreement in science.

Enough for now. This may seem like a slow slog but I can see no other way to
do it.

Tur-tle-ly Yours,

Dave