[MD] Intellectual activity

[Scott Roberts]

Platt,

[Scott]
> So, then, what are we doing when we are reading LILA? Well, what I would
> say that Pirsig was doing in writing LILA is proposing *changes* to our
> vocabulary. So in reading it, we are being asked if we go along with the
> changes being made. He is proposing that we change the meaning of such
> words as 'substance', 'cause', 'empirical', 'karma'. He is also creating
> new symbols, notably, "Metaphysics of Quality", "Dynamic Quality" and
> "Static Quality". So intellectual activity is not just the collection and
> manipulation of symbols, it is also the creation and modification of
> symbols. That is the difference between reading LILA and reading a romance
> novel, and the difference between social use of language and intellectual
> use of language. At the intellectual level we are engaged in modifying our
> vocabularies, not just using them.

Platt said:
As you know there are plenty of changes to our vocabulary suggested by
those with a "sensitivity" agenda, namely the creators of "political
correctness" whereby a bum becomes a homeless person and a gang becomes a
youth group. I would submit that this practice is a social rather than an
intellectual use of language, and I'm sure many of such "creation and
modification" of symbols were instigated by those who think of themselves
as intellectuals.

Scott:
I disagree. Most intellectual activity has social application, that is, 
one's purpose in engaging in intellectual activity is frequently carried out 
in order to modify the social level. There is a lot of this in ZMM and LILA. 
One can distinguish, though the borderline is fuzzy, between more 
propagandistic efforts and those that are less so, between high-quality and 
low-quality efforts. For example, the work of anti-semites to portray Jews 
as sub-human was intellectual activity. Low-quality, to be sure, and 
motivated by reprehensible social goals, but nevertheless it is intellectual 
activity. So I can look at your two examples and say, I approve of replacing 
'bum' with 'homeless person', since the word 'bum' has pejorative 
connotations, but not all homeless people are bad. Many, for example, have 
serious mental problems. But overall, I think the social problem of 
homelessness should be dealt with compassionately, and if replacing 'bum' 
with 'homeless person' leads to greater compassion, I am for it. But I think 
replacing 'gang' with 'youth group' is just silly, since the overwhelming 
majority of youth groups are not criminal, while the word 'gang' (currently, 
in the newspapers) usually means an organized group of young people engaged 
in criminal activity.

Platt said:
Which bring me to my second point. If we restrict intellectual activity
only to the criteria you suggest, it seems that 99 percent of those who
consider themselves to be intellectuals (and who I consider likewise)
would fail to qualify. At least I don't know many people I consider to be
intellectuals like Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley and Paul Davies to
be especially noted for their creativity in adding to or changing our
vocabulary.

Scott:
That's why I made the point of saying 'testing' is also intellectual. It is 
also intellectual activity to argue for keeping the meanings of words that 
we have. So I would say that 99% of intellectual activity is testing, and 1% 
is introducing novel words and meanings. However, it isn't always clearcut 
on which is being done when.

Platt said:
To throw in my own two cents on the question, I think intellectual
activity has more to do with making others understand your thinking on
matters pertaining to the "real world" (as opposed to creating fiction) by
working hard to be lucid, intelligible and rational instead of confusing,
incoherent, and nonsensical.

Scott:
I would call this testing. And whether or not something new is an advance or 
a degeneracy is of course the eternal problem with DQ. That's why there is 
testing.

Platt said:
But as soon as I say that, I think of great fictional books and poetry
("Twas brillig and the slithy toves . . .) that certainly reflect high
intellectual activity. So I'm back in the soup again.

Scott:
Indeed. Fitting art into this is not straightforward, but it does need to be 
included.

Platt said:
Anyway, the struggle to define what is meant by intellect, and by
extension, the intellectual level, isn't over by a long shot. It may turn
out to be one the most difficult questions we've tried to address in the
years this site has been on line. In any case, thanks for getting the ball
rolling.

Scott:
It is difficult because it is intellectual activity that is attempting to 
define "intellectual activity". And this, by the way, is why I believe the 
intellectual level is not just another static level. Because it is 
self-defining and self-reflecting it is inherently dynamic. That is to say, 
I think that intellect contains within itself the Dynamic/Static interplay.

- Scott