[MD] Food for Thought

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Food for Thought
>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:08:50 -0800 (PST)
>
>
> > [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.
>
>[SA]     I hope you continue to help me understand, and I
>still think Pirsig left this open for us to clarify.
>The MoQ is creative for a reason.
>      Yes, hand shaking is symbolic, but this idea is
>understood in the mind (another term Pirsig used to
>describe intellect).  A peace sign in this country is
>just that, a peace sign.  In the southern hemisphere
>americas, this social interaction is derogatory.  The
>idea of this social interaction, this sharing of
>thoughts, is regulated and understood in the mind.
>Language is a medium of social interaction, but
>without the mind, language is just sounds trying to
>relate, socially.  We might still pick up on the
>emotional aspect of language (meaning) during a
>foreign language conversation though.

[Dan] This quote from Robert Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner seems 
appropriate:

"When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much clarity can 
be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower levels. Just as every 
biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic patterns are 
biological; and just as every social level is also biological, although not 
all biological patterns are social; so every intellectual pattern is social 
although not all social patterns are intellectual. Handshaking, ballroom 
dancing, raising one's right hand to take an oath, tipping one's hat to the 
ladies, saying "Gesundheit !" after a sneeze-there are trillions of social 
customs that have no intellectual component. Intellectuality occurs when 
these customs as well as biological and inorganic patterns are designated 
with a sign that stands for them and these signs are manipulated 
independently of the patterns they stand for. "Intellect" can then be 
defined very loosely as the level of independently manipulable signs. 
Grammar, logic and mathematics can be described as the rules of this sign 
manipulation." (Robert Pirsig)

Dan comments:
First, notice that each level can be seen as parallel with the other levels. 
Each level is a continuation of the others. When someone sneezes and you say 
"bless you" it is a social custom arising from a time when (supposedly) it 
was commonly thought the soul left the body when a person sneezed. It could 
be argued that "God Bless You" lost its original (intellectual) meaning when 
it was shortened by dropping "god" though god seems implied. By isolating 
and examining the term "bless you" we are now acting intellectually.

Handshaking is a very interesting social custom that can be utilitized 
intellectually. The "first time we meet" style of handshaking can make or 
break an entire relationship. People tend to gravitate towards others like 
themselves. A strong handshake will intimidate certain people while a weak 
handshake will offend others. Intellectually it seems socially better to 
mimic others rather than to establish a particular style of handshake.

There's a subtle distinction here that RMP notes:

"Another subtler confusion exists between the word, "intellect," that can 
mean thought about anything and the word, "intellectual," where abstract 
thought itself is of primary importance. Thus, though it may be assumed that 
the Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had intellect, it can be doubted that 
theirs was an intellectual culture."

Dan comments:
Most everyone "knows" how to shake hands. Yet there's an art to handshaking 
that most people not only fail to master, they don't even realize there's an 
art to shaking hands in the first place!


>      [Arlo]
> > 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").
>
>  [SA]    This decontextualization though, seems to fly in
>the face with contrast, to grounding thought.  Thought
>and feelings only occur with context.  Thoughts are
>occurring by so many outside the mind activities, to
>decontextualize thought, would be... as you pointed
>out very SOM.  Case discusses writing, as you pointed
>out, but it seems all that is going on is a judgment
>as to what is the highest form of thought.  Writing
>can be terrible and not say anything very thoughtful.
>As we may know, first writing in Sumer was counting
>sheep, cows, wheat, etc...

[Dan] Again, looking to RMP's letter to Paul Turner:

"The question you raise about the intellectual level has troubled me too. 
When I answered Dan Glover in Lila's Child, I remember being a little 
annoyed that anyone should ask what the intellectual level is-as though he 
were asking me what I mean by the word, "the." Any definition you give is 
more likely to complicate understanding than simplify it. But since then I 
have seen the question grow because the answer I have given is inadequate.

"First of all, the line that, "Biologically [Lila's] fine, socially she's 
pretty far down the scale, intellectually she's nowhere. . ." did not mean 
that Lila was lying on the cabin floor unconscious, although some 
interpretations of the intellectual level would make it seem so. Like so 
many words, "intellectual" has different meanings that are confused. The 
first confusion is between the social title, "Intellectual," and the 
intellectual level itself. The statement, "Some intellectuals are not 
intellectual at all," becomes meaningful when one recognizes this 
difference. I think now that the statement "intellectually she's nowhere," 
could have been more exactly put: "As an intellectual Lila is nowhere." That 
would make it clearer that the social title was referred to and the dispute 
about her intellectuality would not have arisen." (Robert Pirsig, Letter to 
Paul Turner)

Dan comments:
A person needs to take care interpreting words used when discussing the MOQ. 
It seems many disagreements could be avoided by better defining the words 
used.

>
>
>      [Arlo]
> > ...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.
>
>[SA]     And logic, oh my, that's just uncreativity.  Sure
>math can be elegant, beautify, and creative in its'
>ends, but if logic defines intellect, then painters
>are on the fringe, again.

Dan comments:
Elegance and beauty would seem to have little in common with scientific 
rigor yet the result of scientific rigor is often elegant and beautiful. 
That would seem to be Dynamic Quality shining through.

>
>coffee, sirus new age music, baby sleepin',

steaming cup of tea, Lyle Lovett, cats napping,

Dan