[MD] Food for Thought

[Laird Bedore]

Hi Joe,

> [Laird]
>
> Glad to see so many others roping SOM (and its fruits) within intellect,
> keen to its outgrowth from a strong S/O mythos. For a while I got the
> feeling I was the only one working from this viewpoint.
>
> "[S/O] is the predominant mode of the intellectual level, particularly
> in greek-derived cultures, but not the only mode."
>
> Cheers,
> -Laird
>
> [Joe]
> Hi Laird, Ian, Arlo, DMB,
>
> I am unsure, Laird, that I agree that "[S/O] is the predominant mode of the 
> intellectual level, particularly in greek-derived cultures, but not the only 
> mode." Modes of intellect seem to require a body/soul split. I can not 
> envision modes of body on a sentient level. If a woman's body and a man's 
> body are only modes of a body how is the identity or sense of self 
> different? Are there only modes of laws for the social level?
>
>   
[Laird]
When looking as intellect as "mind" in terms of the mind/matter 
dichotomy, I can see your point. But when looking at intellect as 
patterns of value, I think that split just dissolves. Perhaps the word 
"modes" isn't the best fit - it seems to imply some degree of 
mechanistic interaction, but that wasn't at all the direction I was 
going for. Replacing "modes" with "categorization of patterns" might be 
closer to where I was aiming.


> [Joe]
> I see rather a conscious evolution and a cosmic evolution underlying an S/O 
> split. Although one sentient can experience both types of evolution, I don't 
> agree it is a modal difference. Different values are involved. Mechanical 
> values are static and subject to laws. Conscious values are not subject to 
> the same laws.
>
>   
[Laird]
I see conscious evolution as a little subset of the patterns of cosmic 
evolution - no inherent difference, just a change in perspective.

Your description above comes very close to Pirsig's positioning of the 
inorganic/biological levels representing objective reality and 
social/intellectual levels representing subjective reality. Wasn't the 
whole gist of the MoQ to scrap the inherent subject-object split? Aren't 
they all just static patterns of value underneath, waiting for 
intellectual patterns (to work sometimes recursively) to give them form? 
And hasn't history made a strong enough case that the S/O split is not 
prevalent in every culture, that the nature of that split may itself be 
culturally-derived? Mythos over Logos, emergence of intellect from 
social level... It seems to follow naturally that the S/O split is 
within intellect but is not universal, thus implying other "modes" of 
intellect.


> [Joe]
> IMO the intellect as a knife is a difficult analogy to understand. The 
> intellect evolving from the social level as a law-giver, seems more fitting 
> to the intellect's role, rather than as an independent butcher of all 
> levels.
>
>   
[Laird]
I don't think the two analogies are exclusive - it's not a "pick just 
one" type thing... One analogy describes intellect's 'behaviour' (awful 
term for it though) while the other describes its origins. Two 
orthogonal viewpoints of the same thing.

The "intellect as a knife" analogy isn't complete, though. The knife 
just cuts experience/reality into pieces. Intellect then treats each 
piece as a symbol. It can manipulate those symbols, shuffling them 
around, comparing one to another, stacking them up in hierarchies of 
symbols - symbols of symbols, recursive-like, putting them into more 
complex relationships. Putting the 'knife' along with symbol 
manipulation makes for a very powerful analogy.

-Laird