[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Horse]

Hi Platt

On 29/04/2010 21:09, Platt Holden wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Here's the quote from Lila:
>>
>> "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect and
>> society,
>> subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of them in a larger
>> system of
>> understanding. Objects are inorganic and biological values; subjects are
>> social and intellectual
>> values. They are not two mysterious universes that go floating around in
>> some subject-object
>> dream that allows them no real contact with one another. They have a
>> matter-of-fact
>> evolutionary relationship. That evolutionary relationship is also a moral
>> one.
>> Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that intellect
>> has functions that
>> pre-date science and philosophy. The intellect’s evolutionary purpose has
>> never been to discover
>> an ultimate meaning of the universe. That is a relatively recent fad. Its
>> historical purpose has
>> been to help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies. It can
>> do this well or poorly,
>> depending on the concepts it invents for this purpose."
>> [Lila. Chap24]
>>
>> Unfortunately, it looks like you've got it wrong Platt because this says
>> nothing about "thinking" being a biological function. What he says is that
>> intellect (thinking) pre-dates science and philosophy.
>>      
>
> You conflated intellect with thinking and omitted Pirsig's key phrase,
> "concepts it invents." Inventing concepts, not dividing the world into
> subjects and objects, is thinking.
>    

[Horse]
The invention of concepts is an intellectual activity as Pirsig shows 
above - i.e. part of the intellectual level so conflating thinking and 
intellect is the correct thing to do. The "concepts it invents" where 
"it" is the intellect or thinking and part of the intellectual level.

>> He also says that inorganic and biological patterns are objects ("Objects
>> are inorganic and biological values") so how can thinking be an object as
>> you seem to believe? Can you poke it cook it or whatever else you might do
>> with a lump of material stuff?
>>
>>      
> Thinking has biological value for humans. Without thinking the human
> organism cannot survive. You can see it, hear it and manipulate it. I don''t
> think you can taste it, however.
>    

[Horse]
I'm sorry! "Thinking has Biological Value"?! Now whose conflating. What 
you think about is neither here nor there.  Thoughts may be influenced 
by other thoughts or influenced by inorganic, biological and social 
patterns but you cannot see another persons thoughts and, unless you are 
telepathic you cannot hear another persons thoughts. You can express a 
thought in language or write a thought down but that is not the thought 
itself - it is an expression of the thought.
Also the biological human organism can survive without thinking if the 
biological functions are continued as in the case of "brain dead" humans.

>> Pirsig says quite plainly that thinkings historical purpose was to "...help
>> a society find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies." and that it
>> (Thinking/Intellect/Intelligence) is part of the evolutionary process of the
>> MoQ.
>>      
>
> Again you assume (thinking/intellect/intelligence) are all the same. You
> conflate what is at issue.
>    

[Horse]
No - I'm saying that they are all part and parcel of the same thing - 
Intellectual patterns of value. The Intellectual level is about thinking 
as Pirsig says. Intellect, intelligence and thinking are part of the 
intellectual level.

>
>    
>> That it was prior to intellectual patterns breaking free from domination by
>> social patterns does not mean that it was not in itself a separate level
>> prior to the emergence of science and philosophy when it finally started to
>> break free from the domination of social patterns.
>>
>>      
> Intellect was a separate level before it broke free from the social level? A
> level within a level? Now you're really going off the deep end.
>    

[Horse]
Are you saying that prior to around 500BC there were no intellectual 
patterns of value? Because _that_ is really what would really be going 
off the deep end. Intellectual patterns of value constitute the 
intellectual level, so either you are saying that there were no 
intellectual patterns of value prior to this time and no intellectual 
level or you have to admit that there were and that the intellectual 
level was very much in existence. If you have intellectual patterns of 
value you have an intellectual level. Intellectual patterns of value are 
not inorganic, biological or social patterns of value.

>> This also undermines your and Bo's idea that SOM is the Intellectual level
>> (what you and Bo would see as science and philosophy etc.) because it
>> existed prior to these as is pointed out in the above section of Lila -
>> "....intellect has functions that
>> pre-date science and philosophy [SOM]". How obvious is that?
>> So how can SOM be the Intellectual level when intellect, intelligence,
>> thinking etc. all existed before these were around?????
>>
>>      
> So how come Pirsig said, "It was this intellectual level that was screwing
> everything up?"
>    

How comes Pirsig has said repeatedly that SOM is not the Intellectual 
level. The above section shows why this is so but you seem unable to 
accept that part of what he is saying. Intellectual patterns of value 
existed prior to SOM so the intellectual level cannot be SOM. How on 
earth could it be when intellectual patterns of value and the 
intellectual level existed long before SOM existed.
If you disagree with this then you have to say that SOM created the 
intellectual level. Please explain how this is so.

>    
>> This is one of the many reasons why SOM as the Intellectual level makes no
>> sense and why both you and Bo have got it so completely wrong as Pirsig has
>> stated on numerous occasions.
>> As far as I can see, your motives for supporting Bo's interpretation are
>> political not metaphysical, as shown by the last sentence in your post and
>> Bo's motives are egotistical shown by the way he tries to convince others
>> that Pirsig, the originator of the MoQ, is incapable of understanding his
>> own work.
>>
>>      

> And your motives are what? To be the ultimate authority on the MOQ?

No. But my motives are not to undermine the MoQ by repeatedly ignoring 
what is not only obvious but has been expressly rejected by Robert 
Pirsig who, one would imagine, knows quite a lot about the MoQ. Or 
perhaps I'm being overly presumptuous in that belief and really it's you 
and Bo who are the real MoQ authorities.

> My motive is to apply the principles of the MOQ to current events. Otherwise,
> it's just an academic exercise which seems to be the purpose of many here.
>    

Well, if ignoring anything that doesn't fit in with what you want to see 
or hear and undermining the MoQ is applying the principles of the MoQ 
then you're going about it the right way. Odd way to do it though.

Good to talk with you

Horse

-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson