[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[David Thomas]

1/18/10 3:51 AM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

Let start over. Her is the first instance of "intellect" in ZaMM.

> 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.

I think we both agree that RMP says "intellect" and "intelligence" are two
different things. I  agree with that they are. Do you?

You say "intelligence" is biological (a jump ahead based on Lila that I'll
overlook). I agree.

RMP indicates above that one of the characteristics makes "intellect"
totally different from "intelligence" is that intellect has something to do
with "context of thought". In the last post the exchange was this.

>> 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.

No,no,no this is RMP talking 19 pages into ZaMM. There is no MoQ, no levels,
no meta-view no Lila even thought about. Why harp on this? Two reasons.

The oblivious, intellect-intellectual-intellectual level are related. If we
don't agree on a common usage of the root word "intellect" there will be no
agreement.

The second is evolution. Since it is mentioned once in ZaMM and RMP was
interested in archeology and anthropology we must assume before and during
writing ZaMM he had basic understanding of the theory.

If you agree (as you did above) that Indians had intellects and they evolved
isolated on the North & South American continents for at least 13,000 years
maybe 30,000 years.  When you say this:

> 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

You confuse and tie the intellect, "the power of knowing", with the
emergence of the intellectual level. Though the intellectual level's
emerging is dependent on the existence of intellect they emerged separately
thousands of years apart.

> 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

Yes this is the crux: If the power to know how to make a flint tool is not
knowledge, and we draw the line where you propose there is no knowledge in
the world until Ancient Greece. And all current cultures that cannot draw a
direct philosophic line to the Greeks (China for one example) have no
knowledge now. Except as the borrowed from somebody else. Surely you do not
believe this silliness.

Which circles right back around to the meaning of intellect.

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

Of all the words here  you fixated on "rational" overlooking "power" and
"capacity". The individual human intellect is capable of many things but
just because it has the ability to be rational it doesn't mean it always is.
Even right here right now.

Intellect is the individual human capacity or power to gather, understand,
and reason probably first though speech (conversation), and then reading
that allows them to select the better thoughts, ideas from worse. Over time
they developed better and better ways to do this. ONE, BUT ONLY ONE, of
those ways was/is subject/object reasoning.

>> 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 you see from above that I am not and never have been pursuing
intellect=intelligence. Neither is intellect=intellectual level. The
intellect is the capacity that emerged deep in the social level and grew and
prospered though group (social) interaction until many many years later the
intellectual level finally emerged.

About the last line in the last quote I have already commented that your
quest for legacy seems to be screwing with your logic.

>> 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?
If you are referring to the last line that is probably how long it will take
the MoQ to ascend. If it does at all.
 
If you a referring to the rest. Mu.

Pragmatically
Dave