[MD] For Arlo

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Chris]
Arlo! - not that I want to hinder you in your eternal battle against 
Platt (and I am rooting for you: as one commie scum to another  =] ) 
but I would like your thoughts on this I think.

[Arlo]
I had every "intention" of coming back to this. :-) Although upfront 
I don't see much to disagree with.

[Chris]
But what get's me wondering is this the creation of the mythos - I'd 
say that the mythos naturally has to begin to develop for the 
intellectual level to form.

[Arlo]
Certainly. And, I'd add, the mythos must reach a certain level of 
complexity before the intellectual level became possible (just as 
cells had to reach a certain level of complexity before dolphin 
bodies was possible).

[Chris]
It seems to me that when humans started this process, of actually 
reflecting over "things" in the mythos this is the seed of the 
intellectual level...

[Arlo]
Yes, that's how I see it.

[Chris]
however, I still think that identifying the core conflict between the 
two levels is paramount if we are to truly set a division point

[Arlo]
I disagree with Pirsig's use of "conflict" to describe the levels 
relations. My cells are not in conflict with the atoms upon which 
they are built. Nor is my body in conflict with carbon (well... 
unless I am jogging by the Interstate Highway). When Pirsig says that 
there are, at times, conflicting goals between the levels (my body 
may want sex, but laws restrict how it can go about it) I get it. But 
having "conflicting goals at times" and "being in conflict" are to me 
different things. As such, I do not see such a rudimentary state of 
conflict between the social and intellectual levels.

[Chris]
it is only when they acquire a distinct different view of how to 
pursue Quality that they can be identified as fully formed levels I think

[Arlo]
I agree. I think in LILA its a fair simplification to say that social 
patterns pursue celebrity, intellectual patterns pursue knowledge. 
Both are governed by restrictions, and both enable certain activity. 
I'm not sure I can answer this any better than this right now, I'll 
have to think about how you frame this question a bit.

[Chris]
Reasoning along that line I would say that when humans started to 
view/examine things in the mythos for no other propose than 
understanding them  -only then are they truly driven by the intellectual level.

[Arlo]
Sounds right to me.

[Chris]
So; conscious reflection over the symbols created by a growing mythos 
NOT in srvice of the mythos.

[Arlo]
Yes, but I would add a note about the illusion of objectivity. "Our 
intellectual descriptions of nature are always culturally derived" 
(Pirsig). While not in the service of the mythos, the intellectual 
level is not (and can not be) unrooted from this foundation.

[Chris]
What do you say? Perhaps we are more in agreement than not?

[Arlo]
I think so, we may have some details or word-uses we disagree with in 
each other, but overall I'd say we are in the same boat.