[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Horse]

Hi Platt

Apologies in advance for the length of this post - it just seemed to 
take on a life of it's own!

On 01/05/2010 18:23, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to further clarify my views. I have tried to do so
> by inserting comments in your post below.
>    

Happy to continue the discussion with you.

> On 1 May 2010 at 15:03, Horse wrote:
>
>    
>> 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 intellecthas 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."
>>      
> [Platt]
> No doubt in some instances Pirsig considers" thought" to be the intellectual level. But, in other instances he considers the intellectual level to be the subject-object understanding.

I think that Pirsig sees the subject-object point of view as the 
dominant pattern of the Intellectual level, at different times referring 
to it as a metaphysical position and at other times as a way of thinking 
about certain aspects of the division of static reality. That's entirely 
reasonable as this is the way we are traditionally conditioned to 
perceive reality. But he also considers the MoQ to explain this mode of 
thinking as an opposing pattern. I can't find anywhere that he makes a 
case for either a metaphysical (SOM) or thought related (subject-object 
thinking) position as being the only patterns within the Intellectual 
level in the same way that he doesn't limit the other levels to a single 
type of value pattern. There are inorganic, biological or social 
patterns that are dominant at certain times and certain contexts but 
this doesn't mean to say that each level is composed exclusively of one 
particular type of pattern.
In a different thread (AI thread) you referred to a number of different 
Social patterns - religion, government, armies etc. - and you could also 
include cities, nations, families, tribes and whole bunch of other 
social patterns. Can you pick one and say that IT is the social level? 
They all occupy a niche within the social level, sometimes one will 
contain others and you can use several simultaneously to describe other 
patterns and groups of patterns. Nations contain cities and states and 
towns and villages but a nation isn't just these patterns. Similarly, 
cities contain boroughs and families live within these boroughs - all 
social patterns co-existing at the social level. You can also have a 
social identity within these social patterns. I'm a Londoner, English, 
British and European simultaneously without any conflict whatsoever.
By limiting a level to a single pattern type you destroy the 
possibilities and the richness that varied pattern types bring to that 
level. Why limit intellectual patterns to a single instance and limit 
yourself to a single point of view. It's like limiting a symphony to a 
single note or a painting to a single colour or a language to a single 
word. Yuck!

> There's the rub. What I don't comprehend (and what you may be able to clarify for me) is how the MOQ as a static intellectual pattern can include itself in its own intellectual level, i.e., the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a larger one.
>    

Andre beat me to the dictionary parallel in an earlier post and I think 
this gives an excellent instance of how a definitional system can 
contain itself without conflict. A dictionary defines words and a 
metaphysics defines concepts so a system of definition, which is what a 
metaphysics is, can reference itself without any problem whatsoever as 
long as you understand that it is a reference to and not an instance of 
- i.e. neither SOM or MoQ are instances of reality they are references 
to reality. Or you could maybe think as it as a recursive process. 
Recursion within language does this all the time and provides the scope 
for a, literally, infinitely variable set of sentences. Where's the problem?

>    
>> 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.
>>      
> [Platt]
> I can show you where Pirsig associates the intellectual level with
> scientific subject-object understanding:
>
> "The INTELLECTUAL LEVEL of patterns, in the historic process of
> freeing itself from its parent social level, namely the church, has invented
> a myth of independence from the social level for its own benefit. Science
> and reason, the myth goes, comes only from the objective world, never
> from the social world. (Lila 12)
>
> "What had happened since the end of World War I was that this
> INTELLECTUAL LEVEL had entered the picture and had taken over
> everything. It was this INTELLECTUAL LEVEL that was screwing
> everything up." (Lila, 24)
>
> "Today we are living in an intellectual and technological paradise and a
> moral and social nightmare because the INTELLECTUAL LEVEL of
> evolution in its struggle to become free of the social level has ignored the
> social level's role in keeping the biological level under control." (Lila, 24)
>
> Not only does PIrsig directly tie SOM to the intellectual level in these
> passages but in doing so continues the critique of reason, intellect and
> intellectualism that he laid out so clearly and passionately in ZAMM. For
> example:
>
> "That's probably why he felt such a deep kinship with so many failing
> students in the back rows of his classroom. The contemptuous looks on
> their faces reflected the same feelings he had toward the whole rational
> intellectual process.". .
>    

My interpretation of the above quotes would be that a subject object 
metaphysics or a subject object way of thinking, AS THE DOMINANT PATTERN 
WITHIN THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL, has caused the problems described above. 
Pirsig ties the problem to the dominance of this pattern of values 
within the level and not to the pattern of values being the entirety of 
the level itself.
Take another example. Microsoft is the dominant operating system for 
home computers. Home computers access the internet. The spread of 
viruses, spam and general malware is caused mainly by poor security of 
Microsoft operating systems which causes problems for everyone accessing 
the internet. This doesn't mean that Microsoft is the only operating 
system for home computers - or that we'd want it to be. Dominance 
doesn't equate to exclusivity.

>    
>> Alternatively, please show how and where thoughts, concepts, ideas,
>> intellect etc. (all static patterns) fit within another static level.
>>      
> [Platt]
> The thoughts, ideas, concepts of religion, for example, arguably fit in the
> social level.

Disagree. The practices and rituals of religion are social patterns and 
fit within the social level not the intellectual patterns of thoughts 
ideas and concepts which give rise to them.

> Similarly, thoughts, ideas, concepts comprising Victorian
> social moral codes fit in the social level.

Thoughts ideas and concepts (intellectual patterns) are references to 
social moral codes not instances of social moral codes (social patterns).

> Before the intellectual level "took over everything,"

became the dominant pattern

> there was plenty of thinking going on, all the way back to the first human tribes. In fact, up to the time of Greeks, most thinking was social level thinking,

Intellectual patterns of value in the service of social patterns of 
value as Pirsig said (I think he said it anyway and if he didn't then he 
should have!).

> and there's a lot of that sort of thinking going on today.

Sure is - that's what the MoQ is trying to correct.

> Pirsig made this distinction himself when he said the original purpose of thinking was to "help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies." For me, it makes sense to put such thinking in the social level.
>    

Thinking (the intellectual level) developed from the social level in 
order to give societies a better tool with which to perpetuate their 
existence. In the same way, social patterns developed from the 
biological level in order to give humans a better way to perpetuate 
their existence. Does it make sense to put cities, nations and other 
social patterns in the biological level? This collapses the entire MoQ 
in upon itself.

>
>    
>>> 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?
>>      
> [Platt]
> See above.
>    

Ditto.

>
>    
>>> 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.
>>      
> [Platt]
> Perhaps this where we can find agreement

Woohoo - it could happen some time Platt :)

> -- SOM as the dominant
> pattern of the intellectual level. I want to ponder that some more. I
> wonder, for example, where does "mystic understanding" fit in the levels?
>    

Hmmm. Not sure. I'd also have to think more about that. This post is 
getting pretty long already! Sorry about that.

> Seems to me we understand some things (have ideas, thoughts about)
> that we can't prove "intellectually," like the truth of Godel's Theorem.
> Also, where does the idea of beauty fit? I disagree with Pirsig's claim that
> nothing gets left out of his static levels. Even he seems to have doubts
> when he imagines a Code of Art or something similar.
>    

In terms of Art (in the broad sense) we come at this from different 
angles so it could be useful to see if they coincide at some point. I 
can feel a few clichés coming on but hopefully they won't sound too 
pretentious and you'll get the gist of what I'm saying.
You're a painter, I'm a musician. Let's say for arguments sake, at the 
moment, that Art is a means of approaching Dynamic Quality - sneaking up 
on it if you will. You start off with some ideas and get into the 
process of painting or playing. When we continue to practice our 
respective activities we become "lost in the moment". Time pretty much 
disappears and the painting or music becomes the whole world for a brief 
moment. But we don't stop thinking completely because we still need to 
do what we're doing in order to maintain that moment. It doesn't 
actually seem to be thinking or acting in the same way though - and it's 
not quite an automated process either. Killing the intellectual patterns 
isn't quite right because we'll need them again when we emerge, so it's 
more like putting them to sleep for the duration of the moment. Making 
them dormant or at least reducing their importance. Then at some 
point.... POW....and we're back to reality with a bit of a shock. That's 
the initial part of it anyway. You have shapes and colours on your 
canvas and I have recorded sounds on disc. We take a look or listen at 
them, think about them a bit...is this bit right, is that bit right, a 
bit more of this here or there and you're off again - back into wherever 
it was you were - back to "the moment". That's how it feels to me anyway 
but it's a very difficult state to describe, and where words and 
explanations generally fail dismally.
Is beauty when you're "in the moment" or is it when you examine the 
results? Or neither? Or both? Hmmm.

 From Lila:
"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of 
biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes 
that established the supremacy of the social order over biological 
life—conventional morals—proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, 
theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the 
supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order—democracy, 
trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there’s 
a fourth Dynamic morality which isn’t a code. He supposed you could call 
it a “code of Art” or something like that, but art is usually thought of 
as such a frill that that
title undercuts its importance."

This code of art could be the link between what we are doing (thinking 
about painting/playing) and the what we're experiencing ("the moment"). 
The experience (the moment) certainly seems to trump the intellect which 
is maybe what Pirsig appears to be getting at.

Perhaps this also relates to "mystic understanding" mentioned above in 
that it is the understanding/knowing that you have after this particular 
experience.

I'll stop there for now but would love to hear what you think - if the 
above makes any sense whatsoever!

>>> 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.
>>      
> [Platt]
> Yes, we agree. A metaphysics is a static intellectual pattern. But for the
> MOQ there is the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a larger
> one. And, for a full understanding the MOQ, is intellect alone enough,
> especially since the indefinable aspect off Quality plays such a central
> role? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
>    

Personally, I would have said that to understand the metaphysics aspect 
of the MoQ, intellect is sufficient. To understand the underlying 
concept of Quality upon which it's built, all the intellect in the world 
is insufficient. You have to experience it to know or understand it but 
when you have experienced it you certainly do know it! Describing it in 
terms of static patterns is something completely different - and 
probably impossible. It's something you feel deep down. That's my take 
on it anyway.


> Finally, in ZAMM Pirsig speaks of the need to escape from the "prison of
> intellect." I empathize with that need  . . . which may influence my
> understanding of the intellectual level. :-)
>    

Maybe Art is the key here. It's what we use to escape from the prison of 
intellect into the moment of beauty. It's certainly a fabulous place to 
visit anyway, even if it is only for very brief 'time'. :)

> Thanks again,  Horse.
>    

My pleasure Platt and I apologise again for the length of this post.

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