[MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

DMB,

Hmmm.  I don't know.  Seems to me when an intellectual pattern becomes 
ritual and cliché it has drifted into the Social Level.   What is the Law of 
Gravity?  Newton's?  Or the missing quantum gravity?

Marsha




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level



Ian said to Chris:
Yes any "organised" pursuit of knowledge is a social pattern, founded on 
faith in a tradition - like science, (even more so if it is used as the 
basis of a form of governance). Which is why the "knowledge for knowledge 
sake" idea is interesting. Expand on that - and leave the "isms" out for now 
;-) - they just get in the way.

dmb says:
I already expressed my disagreement with the notion that "isms" just get in 
the way of a good conversation. (I think sloppy thinking and hardened 
beliefs are the things to worry about.) Rather than repeat that, I'd like to 
disagree with the other part this time. I wanna disagree with the idea that 
science is a faith-based tradition on the social level. I think you are 
being extremely unhelpful here by introducing confusing ambiguities where 
none exist. Your attempts at being diplomatic and playing things down the 
middle are probably well-intentioned but, dude, you're just making a big 
mess.

If you'll take a look at the explanation Arlo recently offered to Marsha on 
this point, I think you'll see what I mean. Yes, Pirsig attacks the idea of 
scientific objectivity and points out that all our intellectual descriptions 
are culturally derived but you've apparently construed this to mean that our 
intellectual descriptions are on social level. (The culture is made up of 
both social and intellectual values, by the way.) Apparently, you assume 
that since science is a collaborative effort that depends on institutions it 
must be social. Yikes. And because it has a history and development, it must 
be based on "tradition". Yikes. Calling it faith takes the cake. Double 
yikes. That's just confused and that confusion shows why its such a bad idea 
to distinguish the social and intellectual in terms of collectivity and 
individuality. (All patterns at all levels have both features. It has been a 
while so I will challenge you - or anyone who cares to try - to think of any 
thing in the known universe that is not both an individual entity and part 
of a larger collective group or system. I seriously wonder if you can even 
imagine a fictional thing that is only one or the other.)

Pirsig's rejection of the myth of objectivity does not demote science to the 
social level, it simply insists that there is no direct connection between 
biological level and the intellectual level, which simply means objective 
reality does not come to us through the eyes. The social level stand between 
and determines what we see and what we look for. This is consistent with 
Pirsig's attack on sensory empiricism, his comments on the Cleveland Harbor 
effect, the SOM-as-a-pair-of-glasses analogy, etc.. One also hears this idea 
from other philosophers. The attack on the myth of the given and the 
rejection of the correspondence theory of truth (as Matt K. will tell you) 
are essentially the same argument.

And when I say that misunderstanding this point "adds confusion" and that 
its "extremely unhelpful" to assert that science is social, that's the 
polite way to put it.

One of the main complaints about objectivity and the scientific worldview is 
that it makes morals and values into something less than real, something 
that only exists in your head, as arbitrary conventions we've inherited 
unwillingly. The MOQ objects to this, of course, which is only consistent 
with his assertion that the social level is stands between intellect and the 
senses. But the MOQ doesn't reject science or demote intellect because of 
that. It accepts scientific data even while it might interpret it 
differently. It expands rather than rejects empiricism. It re-asserts the 
intellectual level as distinctly different to tradition even as it rejects 
the myth of independence. In short, I think you've forgotten or glossed over 
some very important stuff, Ian.

Christoffer's assertion that the intellectual level is about "knowledge for 
the sake of knowledge" is much less objectionable but I'm still going to 
disagree a little bit. I think it expresses a sense of autonomy which is 
quite consistent with Pirsig's assertion that the levels are not continuous, 
that they are discrete. But then there is the pragmatic aspect of the MOQ, 
which says that knowledge exists not for its own sake but to improve the 
quality of our lives, to guide future action and generally to make the world 
a better place.

I use a handy and simple little method. Maybe it'll work for you too. If you 
want to know whether a thing is social or intellectual just ask yourself a 
question; what does it serve? If it holds concepts and ideas together, its 
probably intellectual. If it holds society together, its probably social. 
Trouble creeps in where a thing is more or less both at the same time, but 
that'll just be a slightly more complicated version of the same simple 
operation. Of course its important to remember that, by definition, anything 
intellectual will depend on all the levels below it, including the social 
level. So you might want to think of it in terms of shooting for the moon. 
You know, at what point does the thing fall short of going all the way. I've 
also seen folks get tangled up by confusing our intellectual descriptions of 
things and the things described. But the method is simple. Its based on the 
notion that the levels are different in their purposes and goals. Wars don't 
hold ideas together, but logic and intellectual honesty do, for example. 
These things represent different levels of morality, different values. Two 
plus two equals four no matter what religion you are and you don't have to 
be patriotic to obey the law of gravity. Its that sort of thing. When you 
think about it in a certain way, the rights and freedoms named as 
intellectual values in LILA aren't really about protecting the rights of the 
individual. These rights supposed to be enjoyed by all of us, to ensure that 
we are all equal under the law, and the stated purpose of government is to 
secure these rights. So the principle is "collective" in several ways that 
really, really matter. But more than that, what these rights do in protect 
the freedom of the intellect itself. And this in turn protects the ongoing 
process of evolution, of life. So if we ask "what does it serve", freedom of 
speech is pretty clearly of intellectual value. People use the law to 
publish porn, which i think is kinda stupid cause porn isn't "speech" or 
"expression" so much as it is a biological pleasure, but the principle 
itself is not.

Thanks.
dmb