[MD] Argumentation: Social/Intellectual

[david buchanan]

Dan, Matt and all MOQers:

Dan asked Matt:
Could you please offer for discussion a couple examples where Robert Pirsig 
seems to suggest the thinking of ideas as disconnected from the person.

Matt replied:
...One is Pirsig's definition of the intellectual level in his letter to 
Paul: "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.

dmb says:
I think your questions about intellectual authority might be predicated on 
this confusion. And its really tough to sort out because the relative 
authority enjoyed by those who hold the social position called 
"Intellectual" really does depend, at least in part, on the intellectual 
quality of their work. They really do have to be skilled at manipulating 
those abstract symbols. But we're also talking about people who have to wear 
the right clothes if they want to be employed as an Intellectual. They still 
have to go to work every day and compete with a bunch of other over-educated 
ego maniacs. Anyway, I've interupted Matt. He was still quoting Pirsig...

"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.

...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."

Matt said:
When Pirsig includes grammar as part of the rules of sign manipulation, I 
think that is exactly the place where the distinction between social and 
intellectual breaks down.  Only Cartesians like Chomsky think that there is 
a universal grammar that stands apart from communities that employ 
language...

dmb says:
Whoa. I honestly don't think the MOQ asserts anything like "a universal 
grammar that stands apart from communities". But then I don't understand 
what you mean here with the stuff about "Cartesians like Chomsky". Just so 
you know, I'm not ignoring your point. And may I remind you that Dan was 
asking where you see Pirsig saying thinking and ideas are "disconnected from 
the person". Is it that bit about signs being "independently manipulable"?

Matt continued:
...And look at the way he distinguishes "thought" from "abstract thought".  
What could he be suggesting?  I see what Pirsig is suggesting in part, but I 
think there is only a difference in degree between handshaking and 
"Gesundheit!" and logic and math, not a discrete difference where logic and 
math go off on their own merry way.

dmb says:
To get at the difference between thought and abstract thought, I want to 
grab a key phrase from Pirsig's comments; "where abstract thought itself is 
of primary importance". He uses this in contrast with thinking about 
anything. I like it. Would it be too vague to suggest that thinking, talking 
and other types of symbol use is all about practical, everyday life. But 
when you are doing math or science, philosophy, or otherwise manipulating 
symbols in this abstract way, the importance of the rules becomes a chief 
concern. You have to think about what you're thinking, rather than just 
thinking it. I mean, if this manipulation is to be done with enough skill to 
impress your co-workers down at the local community college, then abstract 
thought itself wil become "of primary importance". Everybody can talk, but 
it takes some skill to be a linguist. Everybody can think, but it takes some 
skill to think about thoughts. Its sort of a common sensical idea about the 
difference between the social and intellectual levels, but I like it. Why 
should it be fancy? And don't we all know this difference from experience?

Matt quoted Pirsig from the Baggini interview:
"...It also seems to be an objection to the rhetorical style of the 
Metaphysics of Quality rather than a discovery of any falsehood in it, and 
in philosophy rhetorical styles are supposed to be irrelevant to the truth."

Then Matt said:
I was very surprised to see this.  ...the end of ZMM, ...seems to me to be 
reversed radically by Pirsig's riposte in the Baggini interview, though it 
makes sense and can be seen to be implicit in Pirsig's distinction between 
social and intellectual.  Rhetoric, in the broad scale Pirsig uses the term 
in ZMM, is not irrelevant to truth--it is the first step towards making 
truth possible...

dmb says:
For whatever its worth, I think Pirsig was only using "rhetorical styles" in 
an ordinary way here. I think he's simply complaining that Baggini's 
question is shallow and irrelevant, which pretty well describes the entire 
interview. Anyway, I really don't think this up-ends ZAMM or anything so 
drastic. I thinks its just Bob being sassy.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/