[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello again Dave.

17 Jan. you spoke:

 Dave
> Based on just this one, first, mention of "intellect" I don't
> believe RMP is using it synonymously with "intelligence" and neither
> am I. Quite the opposite. But neither am I accepting your definition
> of intellect. Let me reword RMP again to see if  we can get closer.

Definition of the intellectual LEVEL I remind you, not of the term
"intellect" because it is so ambiguous ... in the American language at
least. ;)

> Human intellect (now) is not much different in intelligence (its
> basic biological structure rooted in genetics and environmental
> factors) or its intelligence quotient (the modern attempt to measure
> the variable "power" of intelligence individual to individual) than
> it was in ancient man. IMHO modern science in general agrees with
> this and only argues about just when this occurred historically

"..Human intellect not much different in intelligence ...etc." sounds
terribly awkward. I think one particular point is your hang-up, namely if 
intelligence is biological by origin it will be biological
for ever, but as is the Q tenet all lower levels are adopted by the higher 
and intellect as the highest - yet unaware of the level
context  - regard EVERYTHING (intelligence included) to be own
value. Hence the intellect-intelligence mess.   

But from MOQ's meta-level the true level context is seen, among 
other things that intelligence has been stable since "modern" man, but
that intellect is a relatively recent phenomenon (its emergence
identical to the events described in ZAMM as SOM) namely the 4th.
level. For chrissake Dave in LILA Pirsig writes (something like this)
"..In Homer's time the social level had not yet been transcended" I.e.
the intellectual level had not manifested itself, and "Homer's time" is 
the Aretê era and what transcended it was the intellectual level ...as 
SOM.    

> How intellect differed between modern man and ancient man is their
> different "concept(s) of thought". Their "metaphysics" if you will.
> What they each though was "real". Ghosts of ancestors were "real" to
> Indians prior to European contact. Just like God is "real" to many
> people today. As the passionate flaming in the other threads and
> wars around the world demonstrate.

Yes, yes, we agree, this is MOQ's meta-view of the levels' internal 
views, but there is no disembodied "intellect" attached to each level.  

[Dave]
> Main Entry: in·tel·lect Pronunciation: \?in-t?-?lekt\ Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle
> French, from Latin intellectus, from intellegere to understand -
> more at intelligent Date: 14th century 1 a : the power of knowing as
> distinguished from the power to feel and to will

Well here is the crux: Power of knowing, and this knowledge is not 
how to make flint tools, or how to flay a bison but  a knowledge 
".distinguished from feelings (emotions). I.e. an objectivity capable of 
rising above subjectivity. "Will" I guess is something akin to instincts 
and as such biology.   

> the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or
> intelligent thought especially when highly developed 2 : a person
> with great intellectual powers 

"Capacity for rational thought" ! No way. We just agreed that 
intelligence (in Pirsig's words) were as keen in Medieval Times as 
nowadays, but what characterized Medieval intelligence were certainly 
NOT rationality.   

> The first definition say, "the power of knowing" the "capacity for
> knowledge". (I see the feeling and willing, read on Bo) Only when we
> get to the second entry does the word "rational" show up. If we turn
> to the etymology we find Latin- to understand. And if we trace the
> etymology back we find.

> Etymology: Latin intelligent-, intelligens, present participle of
> intelligere, intellegere to understand, from inter- + legere to
> gather, select - more at legend

Well, you can go on for ever about this, but you must admit that 
"understanding" is this context is not understanding of religious 
contexts, but an intellectual - objective - attitude that transcends the 
social religious mythological attitude.   

> Etymology: Middle English legende, from Anglo-French & Medieval
> Latin; Anglo-French legende, from Medieval Latin legenda, from
> Latin, feminine of legendus, gerundive of legere to gather, select,
> read; akin to Greek legein to gather, say, logos speech, word,
> reason.

> So if we trace the roots on intellect back we find: to understand,
> to gather-select, to gather-select-read, all of which are AKIN TO
> the Greek: To gather, say, logos speech, word, and finally at the
> tail end of the list even to the Greeks, REASON is the last and only
> ONE of the root definitions of INTELLECT.

Well it's the end result that counts. Why pursue this untenable 
intellect=intelligence interchangability? The SOL understanding (the 
4th. level as the value of the S/O distinction) is now gathering 
momentum and it's no "sect" that opposes Pirsig, but is supported by 
him when he writes freely, not opening new cans of worms to avoid the 
SOL (when asked!!!!).    

> So, as we all know, Pirsig traced, rightly, the "concept of thought"
> in the Western World to the Greeks and showed that ONE of these
> meanings, REASON, evolved through Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and on
> and on until the present day where it has become the default basis
> of WESTERN reality, SOM.
 
> The whole point of his books IMHO were to denounce that this way was
> THE ONE, THE ONLY, OR THE BEST WAY the intellect could, should, or
> DID operate for all of humankind over all of history.

If so "intellect" becomes SOM's "mind"; a mental container where 
ideas reside, the old religious outlook one idea, SOM another idea, the 
MOQ still another. Outside of this subjective idea-realm is the 
objective world .... and the MOQ is solidly back in SOM.
 
> Do we agree yet?

Obviously not. 

[Bo before]
> > 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

[Dave] 
> Hey, we agree on something! Whoopeeeeeeeee!

Yes, but then stick to intelligence and reserve intellect for the 4th. 
level.

> Ok if we use the computer analogy you like. The brain is the whole box
> with the body as an input/output devises. "Intelligence" is the process
> power of the CPU. RAM and ROM the memory of the brain. ROM is the
> genetic hardwired stuff of Operating System that keeps us
> breathing,seeing etc. RAM is the storage for experience and all the
> application software. What if "intellect" is like a software that runs
> on individual brains that starts with some basic genetic/generic core
> but can and does get updated and rewritten constantly based on
> individual experience. 

Yes, that's the very point. Each level has in turn fed the biological 
computer with its own "program" (premises)  and from those premises 
the computer's logic provides results that supports the premises.  

But this morning I found this in a Thomas post that intrigued me 
considerably. You wrote 

    > I've been watching it. And IF (which is always big here) I understand
    > them. We push all philosophy and metaphysics prior to Pirsig to the social
    > level. And leave nothing on the intellectual level except the MoQ. If we
    > went to all the philosophy books in the world I'm sure we would find no
    > place that stated anything about the Intellectual Level evolving out of
    > the Social Level. Pirsig's intellect invented it. SOM,SOL,S/O split
    > solved. Now all I have to do is figure out how to live another 100 or 1000
    > years.
 
What the heck makes you say this?  The fact is that prior to Pirsig  - 
i.e. in SOM - all philosophy and metaphysics were SUBJECTIVE 
theories about OBJECTIVE reality. Once the MOQ context was 
revealed all philosophy and metaphysics (in the Aristotelian sense) 
were INTELLECTUAL PATTERNS because its "premises" is the said 
S/O divide. Now - after Pirsig - intellect is a static level and the MOQ 
can by no logical loops - ever so strange - be an intellectual pattern. 
This is the in-out turning of the metaphysical sock that Phaedrus talks 
about.   

Bodvar