[MD] Intellectual and Social

[skutvik at online.no]

Matt and Steve.

26 Dec. Matt wrote to Steve:

> There're two bits to this post:  the first long bit is an
> extrapolation of an idea that Steve has.  I think Steve has a powerful
> new interpretation of Pirsig (and I'm not sure he knows it).  The
> second short bit at the end is about stories and theories (and the
> desirability of not just the latter, but the former, too). 

Steve had said:
> Intellectual patterns could never eliminate social patterns since if
> we had to first justify every action before acting we would be
> paralyzed. 

Bo says to Steve (before Matt starts his inscrutable philosophology
Admittedly, each level tries its best to eliminate its parent level - 
intellect no exception - but this is impossible for various reasons. Life 
tries to convert all inorganic material into biological organisms, but 
this returns to its own realm upon decomposition. The social level 
tries to rally all human organisms under some "common cause", but it 
cannot spend all lives in defense of the cause lest the cause is gone 
too. Intellect on its hand tries to remove all social "law and order", but 
the ensuing nightmarish conditions demands restrictions of "kindness" 
and social order is restored. What Pirsig points to in the "campus" 
section. Regarding MOQ's level-like relationship with intellect-as-
SOM, it (the MOQ) will instinctively try to "kill all intellectual patterns", 
but that must not be allowed to happen, and a new intellect vs MOQ 
struggle is prevented by the SOL interpretation. Intellect is MOQ's 
fundament and must be achieved by all cultures before the MOQ is 
achieved.    

 What Steve's "... having to justify every action before acting" 
nonsense means I have no idea except him being bent on spoiling 
MOQ's beauty, so I leave it for Matt to spin some more yarn on it.

Matt:
> My problem with the social/intellectual distinction has always been
> unhappiness with the proposals for distinguishing the two.  I think
> you have a fairly radical interpretation on your hands, more radical
> than I think you think.  Your sentence is fairly blithe, in an
> argumentative pattern that suggests we have a lot of this area locked
> down and we just need to extrapolate a few well-known things and
> clarification will ensue.  If ever it were so simple. 

Why do you you have problems with distinguishing the 
social/intellectual? Nothing is simpler, after all most of LILA is about 
the two levels and Pirsigs assertion is that all major conflicts since 
intellect's arrival (with the Greeks) are due to the  intellectual/social 
struggle.  


Bodvar