[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Arlo, Scott, Steve,  All:
 
[Arlo]:
> The problem with Pirsig's use of "intellectual" is that he uses it to
> confer both the natural, emergentist "higher" moral level arising from
> collective social activity, and on the other uses it to confer someone
> trapped within an "SOMist" objective, amoral, observer perspective. This
> is a carryover from ZMM, where "technologists" were the amoral, rational
> people who had closed the door on the aesthetic. "Intellectual", then,
> is used both as a perjorative (to describe SOMist thinking) and as a
> moral level above social patterns.

Good point. As Stanley would say to Ollie, "A fine mess you SOM 
intellectuals have put us in."

[Arlo]
> A "true" intellectual (I'm guessing) would be responsive to Quality in
> the way of an artist, sculptor or sophist. While an "intellectual" (in
> scare quotes) would be someone who is falsely approaching the world
> through the illusion of SOMist dettachment. At present, if we believe
> Pirsig, our culture is mostly operating under this SOMist paradigm, and
> hence "intellectual activity" is largely not fulfilling its moral role.
> This is a general statement, of course, because there are
> "intellectuals" who operate outside this paradigm (such as Pirsig).

I hesitate to associate intellect with artists. But, more about that 
further along.

[Arlo]
> That said, I see "Intellectual activity" as the participation in
> collective dialogue aimed at creating, manipulating and sustaining
> "intellectual patterns", which are symbolic-metaphorical representations
> of experience.

Except for the adjective "collective" which is a red flag to an 
individualist like me, this definition has a lot going for it IMO. 
 
[Arlo]
> Fiction or non-fiction are absent in this description, as both may or
> may not at times involve "intellectual activity". Symbolic-metaphorical
> representations may involve a painting, or a treatise on mathematics.

The symbolic representations in a painting are more likely to be 
something other than intellectual compared to a treatise on mathematics 
which is primarily intellectual, although esthetics is often used in 
assessing mathematical (logical) structures. 

[Arlo]
> What are we doing when we read Lila? We are participating in this 
> collective dialogue. As such, it is an "intellectual activity".

Sorry, but my individualist streak objects. Reading Lila is a one on 
one interchange, one reader at a time.

[Arlo]
>What do
> we do when we examine a Cezanne? We are participating in this dialogue.
> As such it is an "intellectual activity".

No. We are participating in an aesthetic activity which has more to do 
with Spirit than intellect.  

[Arlo]
> This agrees with Scott's assessment that "intellectual activity is not
> just the collection and manipulation of symbols, it is also the creation
> and modification of symbols", however it adds two extensions. One
> recognizes that the activity is dialogic historically, and the second
> that it is purposeful towards particular representative patterns, a sort
> of "meta-activity" where one is not describing and examining
> "experience", but one is describing and examining the symbols and
> metaphors by which we make sense of experience. Language can be social,
> or "phatic", with purposeful behavior towards establishing and
> maintaining "social patterns". But here the emphasis is on the willful
> examination of symbolic-metaphorical patterns, and not so much the
> taxonomic-level activity.

OK by me.

[Arlo]
> One is, I'd argue, engaged in "intellectual activity" when one reports
> Einstein's findings. That one has not created or manipulated symbols is
> irrelevant. But one does become a willful participant in the historical
> dialogue directed at the examination of the symbolic-metaphorical
> patterns used to describe culture.
> 
> What paradigm one brings to one's participation in this dialogue is the
> critical point of Lila.

OK here, too. 

[Arlo]
> But I think, just to be clear here, we need to remember that Pirsig's
> condemnation of the SOMist underpinnings of "intellectual activity" in
> modern society is not limited to "leftists" or "college professors". The
> same inherent flaw lies in the "intellectual activity" of those arguing
> "from the right". Meaning, you can't condemn one professor using the
> perjorative "intellectual" (implying their SOMist flaw), while
> supporting another whom happens to advance a political ideology you
> agree with. It's not just the "leftists" that are mislead by an SOMist
> paradigm, its the "rightists" too. We have to be careful (and this is
> for you, Platt, mi amigo), not to draw artificial boundaries that align
> SOM and non-SOM with modern political parties. Both Marx and Rand were
> "SOMist intellectuals", and should be critically examined as such.

Except that for a few conservative outposts, the dominant SOMist 
influence on society is more from the left wing of the political 
spectrum than the right, including but not limited to academe, 
Hollywood and the "mainstream" media. As Shelby Steele writes:

"Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by 
the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the 
imperialistic and racist ugliness of Western sin. Once the stigma is in 
place, one need only be anti-American to be "good, " in order to have 
an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People 
has seemingly disparate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al 
Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in 
anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power 
for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-
Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real 
virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort -- only outrage at every 
slight echo of the imperialist past."  

I might add that anti-capitalism serves the same purpose of elevating 
oneself to virtue and power. Reminds you of Rigel doesn't it -- full of 
great ways for others to improve at no cost to himself?

But while mi amigo Arlo and I may battle it out on the political front, 
the definition of intellect remains on the table, and I thank Arlo for 
contributing some fine ideas towards an eventual answer to the 
question.

Platt