[MD] Intellectual activity

[Scott Roberts]

Platt,

> 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.

Platt said:
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:
Well, I'm not so sure. The ideal of the ivory tower scientist is, I think, 
more myth than actual. It seems to me that a lot of science is done nowadays 
to add to our technological stockpile, which modifies the social level. In 
other disciplines (such as philosophy and of course the social sciences), 
one mostly argues so that others will "think like me", and one hopes they do 
so so that the social order is improved.

[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.

Platt said:
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.

Scott:
I meant 'compassion' in the Buddhist sense, like Christian Love, which is 
not a biological emotion. But regardless, intellectual activity is *about* 
everything, and one piece of everything is interaction with homeless people. 
So, as a matter of reflection, I can say "it is better to interact from a 
compassionate stance than from an insulting stance". But, yes, one has the 
the right to be insulting, if that's what one wants to be (and is ready to 
accept the consequences).

> 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:
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.

Scott:
Ok.

> 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:
How about "evaluation in pursuit of truth" as a substitute for "testing?"

Scott:
I would stop at "evaluation". One might also evaluate in pursuit of the Good 
or the Beautiful. Ultimately I like to think they are all One, but I don't 
live on an ultimate level.

> 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.

Platt said:
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.

Scott:
Yes, but one way to think of that interplay, in accordance with certain 
mystical revelation, is that the interplay on other levels is Intellect on 
other levels (implying non-human intellect). That is, another way of 
defining intellect is *as* Dynamic/Static interplay.

- Scott