[MD] A.I.

[John Carl]

I Don't Agree  with this Arlo,


[Arlo]
> Actually, Pirsig does not posit that intellectual patterns are created by
> DQ,
> he says (correctly) that intellectual patterns emerge from social patterns.
> But
> Pirsig is not alone in thinking this, as he himself points to several
> others
> who have said as much, and today most "science types" I know understand
> that
> "our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived."
> (LILA)


The social patterns are the building blocks, the SQ of old intellectual
tracks, where the train has gone already.  You can call a book an
Intellectual pattern", and you'd be right in that it had an intellectual
creator.  But the fact of a book or a teaching is a social phenomena,
involving publisher acceptance and reader popularity.

Even teachers can't be teachers by themselves.  The social game is
fundamental.  No writing can be significant until it's been read.

But DQ is where the ideas come from.  Intellect IS DQ to social patterning.
 DQ to Intellect can only be "DQ" in its essence - an undefinable something
out there that generates hypothesis.

If intellectual patterns came from social patterns, then the "infinity of
possible hypothesis" postulate wouldn't hold.


Johh the top-down-oriented