[MD] Mountain View

[MarshaV]

At 11:59 AM 2/13/2007, Bo wrote:

Greetings Bo,

>[Marsha]
> > RMP has defined the Intellectual Level as "the  collection and
> > manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for
> > patterns of experience."  (LC,p.64)  Intellect, on the other hand, "is
> > simply thinking, and one can think without involving the
> > subject-object relationship."  (LC,p.289)
>
> > Is this wrong?  How would you define the Intellectual Level?  How are
> > you defining intellect?   Compare and contrast everything with RMP's
> > definition.
>
>[Bo]
>Yes it is wrong. This is merely a definition of language and
>language is not a level in the MOQ. There surely were language
>at the social level, and what's more, its an important tenet that
>the upper level is in permanent conflict with its parent level and
>that they mutually despise each other. But how can "manipulation
>of symbols" be offensive to social value? And how can intellect
>(defined that way) see social value as an hindrance for "symbol
>manipulation"? I see no such possibility.
>
>The SOL interpretation defines the intellectual level as the
>subject/object distinction. This makes the emergence of SOM
>into the emergence of the intellectual level. This would
>harmonize ZMM and LILA (that now are worlds apart) and
>generally get all puzzle pieces to fall into pace. One example. It
>fullfills the said "level conflict" requirement. All intellectual
>patterns that Pirsig (correctly) lists as going against social value
>are S/O to the core, while "symbol manipulation" is totally absent.
>I won't push more on you but feel free to ask.

I am not an expert, and speak only of my interpretation.

Thinking (intellect) is a tool.  Language is, at the moment, the 
prevalent tool of thinking.  I do not believe RMP has limited 
thinking to the Intellectual Level.  Thinking represents 
SPoVs.  Social patterns are imitated, intellectual patterns are 
manipulated.  This would make a clear distinction between the Social 
and Intellectual Levels.

The MOQ is clearly a higher level theory than SOM, but it seems to me 
it is still an Intellectual pattern.

>[Marsha]
> > While my language has not yet evolved to reflect it, I do not think of
> > the world being made up of subject&objects.    I think of the world as
> > being value experiences and patterns of value experiences.
>
>[Bo]
>The world is NOT made up of subjects and objects - that's the
>very point - the world is made up of Dynamic and Static Quality.
>The subject/object make-up is how things look from intellects
>limited (static) view.

Hmmm.  I believe intellect (thinking) is a tool little understood and 
capable of evolution.

I would like to share an experience I had with language/thinking.  I 
spent 6 weeks in Italy, and do not speak the language.  Toward the 
end of the six weeks, my English was restructuring to represent a 
more Italian syntax.  It was happening unconsciously.  I began to 
notice and found it amusing.  I also started asking my friends who 
did speak Italian to explain the syntactical differences.  Sure 
enough, my language was adapting to its new environment.  This may 
prove nothing, but it indicates to me that thinking is far more 
powerful than we realize.  My bet is that as we explore and 
understand the experiences represented by the MOQ, our thinking and 
language will adapt.

>[Marsha]
> > I do not
> > believe RMP invented a new, great theory.  He has explained, using the
> > MOQ, a revelation he experienced from his Mountain View.
>
>[Bo]
>I'll not make this a big deal of this, but if the SOL interpretation
>holds the plain below Pirsig's Peak is the previous S/O
>metaphysics (that so many are confined to) and that's pretty
>great.


There is the MOQ (an Intellectual Level theory) and that which it 
represents.  I want, to the best of my ability, to experience and 
understand that which it represents.  There are a lot of people like 
me, and if I can understand maybe that will move understanding 
forward a little bit.

I think that putting the MOQ in the hands of Academia would be to 
infuse it with low value.


>[Marsha]
> > Let's just see if a clarification of the definition of 'Intellectual
> > Level' and 'intellect'  helps, because I am not seeing your problem.
> > But it could easily be my misunderstanding.
>
>[Bo]
>Good. let's see how it develops



m