[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Scott,
 
> 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.

I wouldn't say "most" intellectual activity has as its purpose to change 
society. Scientific activities in particular seem to be aimed more at 
discovering truth than modifying the social level. Of course, there's fall 
out from discoveries that can affect society.

[Scott]
> 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.

You inject emotions into the mix with your emphasis on "compassion." In 
Pirsig's view, emotions are biological level events, not intellectual. Not 
that emotions can be entirely divorced from intellect. But, if we are to 
define intellect, it would be best to keep emotions out of it. Your term 
"mental problems" isn't PC. You should say "mental explorers" or 
"differently brained" or "intellectually challenged." to show your 
sensitivity to another's feelings. And I hope that even though you may 
find "bum" to be pejorative you would be against a law banning its use.

> 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.

I can't go along with "testing" as descriptive of intellect. It reminds me 
too much of its second definition in Merriam-Webster: "something (as a 
series of questions or exercises) for measuring the skill, knowledge, 
intelligence, capacities, or aptitudes of an individual or group." For 
example, a driving test is more physical than intellectual. I would prefer 
the term "evaluation." That's usually a strictly mental process and nicely 
ties to Pirsig's value world.

> 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.

How about "evaluation in pursuit of truth" as a substitute for "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.

I think all levels include the Dynamic/Static interplay although not as 
much as the intellectual level. But I guess that opinion doesn't help 
solve our problem in defining intellect.

Platt