[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Scott,

> 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.

No doubt the humanities today are skewered toward improving the social 
order although in my day history and English literature were pretty 
much free of political cant.  We did not interpret Hamlet as a 
reflection of white European male's domination of women or lust for 
power.  As for science, I think of it as separate from technology. I 
don't consider computer programmers who bring us the benefits of 
digital theory to be scientists, though God knows they're intellectual 
whizzes.  

> [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.

It's news to me that Buddhist compassion and Christian Love are based 
on intellect. I always thought they were spiritually, not 
intellectually inspired. 

> 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).

Intellectual activity is about everything? What happened to those of us 
who agree with Hamlet, "There are more things in heaven and earth, 
Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy?"  Gee. I hope there's 
more to life and living than just intellectual activity. I can enjoy 
watching squirrels play without wondering whether they go around the 
tree or the tree goes around them.   

> > 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.

There's also, I submit, a non-intellectual "gut" feeling whether 
something is a new advance or a degeneracy. I think "compassion" comes 
under this heading -- a biological sense that has served the biological 
level (life) so well for millennia. 

> 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.

Well, I think here's where the definition of intellect meets a 
crossroads. Pursuing the Good and the Beautiful to me are not so much 
intellectual pursuits (though the the Good can be as Pirsig showed) as 
aesthetic.  

> > 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.

It seems your definition of Intellect is what I call Mind. To me, 
intellect is a human attribute requiring a human brain whereas Mind 
simultaneously encompasses and transcends human intellect and brain. I 
believe you and I have agreed on the existence of the this larger 
"Intellect." The question then is, in defining the intellectual and 
intellectual level, should we restrict our focus to the thoughts of 
human beings? Or should we include the more speculative idea of Mind?

Finally, to throw another monkey wrench into the works, another quote 
from Hamlet: "There is nothing either or good or bad, but thinking 
makes it so." If "thinking" extends all the way down to the atomic 
level, Pirsig would agree. But if "thinking" is restricted to the 
intellectual level, Pirsig and Hamlet are at sword points.

Platt