[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Horse]

Hi Platt

Thanks for answering the question. You're absolutely correct - I don't 
agree with you but at least it's good that we should try and find out if 
our differences can be resolved. Unlikely as maybe, but definitely worth 
a shot.

On 30/04/2010 03:07, Platt Holden wrote:
>> "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"
>> >
>> >  If intellectual patterns of value didn't exist prior to SOM (SOM as the
>> >  entirety of the Intellectual level) as you seem to be saying then how did
>> >  SOM create the Intellectual level?
>> >
>> >  This question needs to be answered.
>> >
>> >  Horse
>>      
> Your wish is my command. Again, you conflate intellectual patterns of value with the intellectual level. The two are separate concepts (thoughts, ideas).

[Horse]
I disagree. Intellectual patterns constitute the Intellectual level. As 
static patterns of value this is the only place where they fit in within 
the MoQ.They are constituents of the same thing - Intellect. Thoughts 
and ideas are intellectual patterns that are within the Intellectual 
level. This also appears to be how Pirsig sees the situation. In 
annotation 136 of Lila's Child he says:

"...an imprisoned criminal is no longer a threat to society and it 
becomes arguably immoral to kill him because he is still capable of 
thought."

I.e. social patterns should not destroy (a source of) intellectual 
patterns. I haven't used the full quote as I am only showing what is 
necessary for the immediate purposes of what we are discussing and would 
prefer to leave any political implications alone for the moment.
Also in annotation 111 he says:

"Objects are biological patterns and inorganic patterns, not thoughts or 
social patterns."

here contrasting Objects (biological patterns and inorganic patterns) 
with Subjects (intellectual patterns [thoughts] and social patterns).

There are other instances where Pirsig makes similar references - can 
you show me some where Pirsig makes any claim that is not in accordance 
with this - i.e. that thoughts, concepts, ideas, intellect etc. are not 
intellectual patterns and thus part of the intellectual level. 
Alternatively, please show how and where thoughts, concepts, ideas, 
intellect etc. (all static patterns) fit within another static level.


> Intellectual patterns of value is a broad concept that includes all sorts of ideas other than SOM that were used to find food, detect danger and defeat enemies, most of them having to with the activities of various Gods and spirits.

[Horse]
But still thoughts, concepts, ideas, intellect etc. and thus part of an 
Intellectual level. Where else would they fit?


> So intellectual (thought) patterns certainly did exist prior to SOM which wasn't a prominent concept until the ancient Greeks came up with
> the idea.
>    

[Horse]
Precisely. The Intellectual level was in existence prior to SOM. SOM was 
a new pattern of values that came into existence through intellectual 
processes. It was also of higher value than previous intellectual 
patterns but those other intellectual patterns did not cease to exist or 
become social patterns. Other intellectual patterns came along later and 
are competing for "space" within the Intellectual level. SOM is a 
dominating or dominant pattern within the intellectual level but not the 
only one.

> As for your final question, SOM didn't create the intellectual level. A man named Pirsig did. Before him there was no "intellectual level" as such.
>    

[Horse]
Not as such, I agree - but what Pirsig did was to create a metaphysics 
centred on Quality and expand on other intellectual patterns and create 
new ones. Effectively, he renamed, reconfigured and added to existing 
patterns of value by creating a new way of looking at how we classify 
the results of experience. That's what a metaphysics is, isn't it? Or at 
least one way of looking at it. Either way, a metaphysics is still a 
static pattern of intellectual values - regardless of what it refers to.

> I know you won't find my answers satisfactory, but I hope you'll give me credit for giving them a shot.
>    

[Horse]
Absolutely. I was really pleased when the above dropped into my inbox - 
not because I want to trade insults or score points but because I feel 
it's important to try and get to the root of our disagreements. Many 
thanks Platt.

Cheers

Horse

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa