[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello again Dave. 
 
16 Jan. you wrote:

> 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.

OK, I'll be happy to receive this paper.

> 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?

Whoa yourself Dave, the use of "intellect" as synonymous with 
"intelligence" is MOQ's very problem. Intelligence is merely (not 
merely, yet ..) the biological brain computing power, while intellect is 
the 4th. level (in my now well known opinion). The 4th. level employs 
intelligence like the 3rd before it. Had Pirsig not used "intellect" in the 
same breath as intelligence (IQ) all would have been fine.

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

Well, I'm still worried about the sloppy use of "intellect". The term 
indicates (according to my dictionary) the ability to distinguish 
between reason (objectivity) and emotion (subjectivity) i.e. SOM, 
while - again - "intelligence" can be all kinds of aptitudes. If this is 
observed everything falls in place.   

> 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?

Yes, agree 150 % I would say that intelligence has been constant 
since Homo Sapiens. Before that there surely were intelligence, but in 
step with neural complexity.Many animals obviously think albeit not 
by way of language  

> 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.

I'm not all sure what your "aside" point is. That SOM's science hasn't        

" ... come up with  definitive agreements between them on what, 
when, why, where, etc makes humans different (or not) from all 
rest..." 

is because the S/O matrix has no existential levels, there were just 
matter that by chance started to proliferate and crawl around. Then - 
after aeons - some by-product called "mind" emerged and then  
thinkers who began making up "subjective" theories about it all.     

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

That's the way. Had just more people realized it.

Bodvar