[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[david buchanan]

Mati said:
...Bodvar's SOL captures the essence of intellect from the western metaphysical perspective.  Both Bo and I are of the opinion that there is no rival to SOL in the eastern metaphysical tradition that dominated the social level and propelled intellect to what it is.  Marsha, before you pounce on this, I will also concede that at this point nobody has been able to approach this question of eastern metaphysical understanding as a context for intellect.  Therefore because it hasn't been thoroughly approached in this manner doesn't mean it is automatically disqualified as intellect, it just means that it hasn't met the muster that Bo has given to SOL as the heavyweight contender.  I would also share that in Pirsig's letter to Paul that he has fallen short of giving us much to move forward on this issue.  My belief that Pirsig has retired on the tremendous accomplishment of MOQ and will let us the next generation to figure out the details.  So we will continue to debate this issue.  Let us hope that a small group like minded individuals (about MOQ) are up to the task and can the whole chain as strong as the strongest of links.

dmb says:
Hmmm. I'd have to learn tons before I could even try to come up with an Eastern rival to "SOL". But if you're looking for a rival to SOM here in the West, Pirsig tells us exactly where to find it. I've mentioned the Radical Empiricism of William James before, about a hundred times. This, along with the pragmatic theory of truth, is what you need. I mean, these alternatives would be laid down first so that intellect or the fourth level is defined and described in terms of explaining experience and guiding experience rather that trying present intellect as an objective fact. This groundwork effectively changes the criteria by which the definitions and descriptions are judged. I mean, intellect is "real" in terms of what we know from experience rather than an ontological reality or whatever. I mean, we don't have to go East to find a rival for SOM. As I keep saying repeatedly, support for this alternative can be found right here in American Philosophy and its extremely readable. For the last twenty years or so there has been a huge revival of American pragmatism, especially when it comes to James and Dewey. 

I can see how Dewey might actually be better for somebody who was looking at education issues. He was also a radical empiricist and he used that basis to go in several different directions. Its the basis of his thinking on Art, on Politics, on Education and of course his thoughts about philosophy in general. By setting down a pragmatic theory of truth and Radical Empiricism, you don't even have to try to prove that intellect is "real". You only have to make a case that the distinction is useful, that it works to explain the past and guide the future. We only have to say its what we'll use until something better comes along, not THEE truth about anything. 

At one point Pirsig says that the classifications he uses for the level is not at all original. These categories can be found elsewhere and in fact the present scientific worldview is just about the only one that ever been that doesn't have a hierarchy of being. The social level religions are chock full of that stuff. You know, the great chain of being, Dante's Inferno, the basic arrangement of hell, earth and heaven, etc., etc.. But he also says that he makes a move that is unusual. The levels are not continuous, he says, they're discrete, they have different goals and purposes. This, it seems to me, has to be the central idea, the basis on which we distinguish them. That should be the basis of the first and most basic question we ask about any given expression of value; what does it serve? Does it serve to hold society together or does it work to maintain the integrity of intellect? 

Another thing that seems very important is to work closely with Pirsig's examples and explanations. Along with that re-focusing, there should be a weeding out of all the stuff that's been added by various MOQers here in the forum. The most conspicuous of the monkey wrenches, in my view, would be Bo's view. I think that one has created a lot of unnecessary problems, particularly for you. Pirsig has never said such a thing and he does not endorse it when others say so. The is also the ever-present assertion that the social level is inherently "collectivist" while the intellectual level is about "individuality". Pirsig never said that either. There were a few who took up the idea that the social level is a matter of "unconscious copying of behavior" or that science is social. Pirsig never said that either and I don't think any of the things make sense at all. In fact, I'm a little angry at how much time has been spent on things with so little merit. They've actually been very destructive in terms of trying to have a fruitful conversation about the levels. Such confusions are a tragic waste of time. I see it as pouring dirt into clear waters. It just makes mud where we want transparency. 

More specifically, I don't think it would work to do a case study of just one person and I think you'd need to ask a large number of very specific questions. Vague is not at all the same as Dynamic plus you're looking for static patterns, to detect difference in static values. Again, those questions should be developed on the basis of Pirsig's explanations and examples. You'd ask questions that elicit people's attitudes about war, religion, their nation, other nations, about science and money and vice crimes, about authority and tradition and freedom and all the academic criticisms of ideologies and traditional social structures. This is not because Pirsig's word is the final word or anything so crude as that. Its just that it makes sense to work with what's in the books rather than what people around here say about it.

Personally, I don't quite understand why this looks like the weakest link. In my mind, these issues are pretty clear. I watch current event unfold in terms of the conflict between social and intellectual values and it works. It makes sense of stuff that would otherwise seem senseless. It allows one to see what's motivating the people engaged in these conflicts, to see what it is they think they're defending. Been doing so long that I don't even have to try, easy as riding a bike. I'd be happy to get more specific about this if you're interested. We could start with Reet's answer although I'd prefer to look at non-fictional cases. It did strike me as odd that you saw her answers as a mixture of social and intellectual values while I saw only social level concerns, mostly having to do with family and money. Naturally, I wonder where you see the intellectual values in those comments.

Or maybe I just don't know enough to get confused about it. 

In any case, this is the stuff I need to think about. One day soon I'll be sitting in the exam room and I expect to be questioned about some of the same issues. Thanks for that. It has already been a helpful exercise.





 
_________________________________________________________________
Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now!
http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm