[MD] Food for Thought

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[SA]
Why does interactivity include thought in this way?  When I shake somebody's
hand, this is not thought shaking hand, and not just biology shaking hand,
we've socialized.

[Arlo]
The point I was making was that if we place ALL symbolic manipulations on the
intellectual level we have to include ANY activity that involves an exchange of
symbols, or relies on some form of symbolic rendering for it to occur. "Hand
shaking" is a highly symbolic activity, that is certainly used to convey some
abstracted meaning, typically "hello" and a host of social positioning symbols.

As such, it would HAVE to be placed on the intellectual level... IF the
intellectual level included ALL symbolic exchanges. This would leave only
completely non-symbolically mediated activity for the social level. It is clear
Pirsig did not go this route.

Instead, there IS symbolic manipulation (symbolically mediated activity, if
you'll permit my rewording) on the social as well as the intellectual level.
So, "symbolic manipulation" can not be the distinction between these two
levels. It has to be, then, something ABOUT those symbolic manipulations that
differentiates "social" from "intellectual" patterns.

The closest Pirsig comes to this is indicating that the "mythos" is the social
level (or is on the social level) and the "logos" is (or is on) the
intellectual level. If "myth" is a social pattern, and "science" is not, the
distinction then must point towards the distinction between the levels.

And here I come to two words.

"Deculturalization". Science sets itself up as "outside" or "independent" of
culture. But this is SOMist science, not a MOQ science Pirsig would envision.
He clearly roots intellect in social patterns, talks about our suspension in
language, and calls such a deculturation a "myth".

"Decontextualization". Science tends towards describing abstract properties or
laws. It isn't concerned about "this" apple and "this" tree, but with
describing a "universal" property of all apples falling from all trees. But all
symbolic manipulation is in some way "decontextual". The word "apple", as I
said, IS a decontextualized abstraction from the object we eat.

I think it was DMB who suggested that maybe the symbolic manipulations on the
intellectual level are more decultural or decontextual, even if they can never
reach pure states of deculturation or decontextuality. And maybe, as Case
suggests, writing had something to do with this. To be sure, "writing" was a
huge step towards more decontextuality (or "abstraction" or even "disembodiment
of language").

The problem is, deculturation and decontextualization is precisely what Pirsig
identifies as SOMist. If this is the goal of the intellectual level, then the
intellectual level seems to move towards SOM. A contributor to the list,
Bodvar, has suggest as much (if I understand correctly) with is SOLAQI 
(Subject/object Logic as Quality’s Intellect). Pirsig hints at this so much
in not only placing "intellect" at the feet of the Greeks, but also in directly
placing the logos as the intellectual level. 

Anyways, that's enough for tonight.