[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Horse]

Hi Mary

On 02/05/2010 00:28, Mary wrote:
> Hello Bo, Marsha, Platt, DMB, Horse, Andre, Steve, ...
>
> I've only now caught up with all the posts made in this thread in the past week. They are equivalent to the arguments you can hear between Christian Fundamentalists and their counterparts.  I Googled for "opposite of fundamentalist" to find an appropriate word and only came up with something like "liberal Christian".
>
> On one side are arrayed the forces of DMB, Horse, Andre, Steve and others who are the equivalent of MoQ Fundamentalists.  Every word of Pirsig's writings are to be taken as literally true, without metaphor or interpretation.

Completely and utterly wrong. I have never said this or tried to imply 
it and neither have any of the others that you mention. We are using 
Pirsig as an authoritative figure (and not necessarily THE authoritative 
figure) with respect to what he wrote and how he sees the MoQ. Given the 
years that he spent formulating his idea and that he wrote 2 books and 
contributed to other works dealing with this idea he probably has a 
better handle on it than most. That's why I'm prepared to accept the 
majority of what he says as accurate with regard to his own work. There 
are some areas of the MoQ that I don't fully agree with and have said 
so, as has Arlo, Steve, Andre and others you mention, and there are 
other parts which we all regard as metaphorical - this is not 
fundamentalism, but it is common sense - which is something that may be 
lacking in Bo's, and as a consequence your, incorrect interpretation of 
Pirsig's MoQ.

> The MoQ Earth was created in 7 24-hour days, and on the last day was created the Intellectual Level where all thinking resides. On the other side are arrayed the forces of Bo, Marsha, myself, and Platt, who take a more, dare I say, liberal interpretation.
>    

Or misinterpretation neither liberal or otherwise. The only 
fundamentalism going on here is Bo's (and by argument and association 
yours and Marsha's) self-fundamentalist view that he's right and anyone 
who disagrees is wrong - including Pirsig!. Another phrase that comes to 
mind, with respect to this (mis-)interpretation, is bloody-minded.
But why are you saying that Platt is not a fundamentalist? Platt is much 
more likely - and quite reasonably so - to request confirmation of an 
argument by reference to Pirsig's ideas than any one of the so-called 
"fundamentalists" you mention in your second paragraph. He also uses 
Pirsig quotes to support his own position as does Bo.
Your mischievous use here of these terms is unhelpful and divisive - 
it's also incorrect!

> Horse says there was no thinking prior to the Social Level, and quotes Pirsig to prove it.  Since each level emerges in an evolutionary manner from the one below, I would like to know where the Social level came from if there was no thinking to think it up in the Biological?
>    

As thinking requires intellect (i.e. intelligence) and is part of the 
Intellectual level and, according to the MoQ, the Intellectual level 
evolved from the Social level it is a logical odds on certainty that 
there was no thinking prior to the Social level. There is also no social 
level thinking - only thinking as an intellectual activity/pattern and 
thus part of the intellectual level. How this relates to the social 
level varies depending upon context. Many on here confuse social level 
behaviour or activities with intellectual behaviour and activities. 
Perhaps this is a consequence of seeing both as subjective and thus the 
same - this is not how it is within the MoQ but something that the MoQ, 
as a higher Quality intellectual pattern, seeks to redress.

> [horse]
> 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. 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?
>
> [Mary says]  This is a prime example of the Fundamentalist view.  Of course thinking predates science and philosophy.  It was thinking that came up with the Social, and that came from thinking that was going on in the Biological.
>    

Not as I and the majority here and Pirsig understand it and it has 
nothing to do with fundamentalism. Pirsig is not saying that prior to 
5th century BC Athenian civilisation (SOM) there was no intellectual 
level. He is saying that thinking is an intellectual activity and 
pre-dates SOM. If thinking came up with the social then explain how a 
social pattern such as a city, which must have inherited this ability, 
thinks. Pre-social humans didn't "come up with" social patterns by 
thinking, social patterns emerged from instinctive biological behaviour 
of grouping together for protection against other biological threats 
such as large animals with big teeth!

> [horse]
> Pirsig says quite plainly that thinking's historical [replace "historical" with "biological" and you'll have it right, Horse] 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. 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.
> ...
> 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?????
>
> [mary]
> Horse, of course thinking existed prior to SOM.

Good to hear we agree on something. However, in your aside within the 
above section from my previous post you are putting words into Pirsigs 
mouth which he didn't intend and would be unlikely to endorse. Here's 
the quote again without additions:

"Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that 
intellect has functions that predate 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 Chapter 24

To change 'historical' to 'biological', as per your aside,  
misinterprets what he is referring to in the sentence. You could replace 
the 'It's' with 'intellect's' (or 'thinking's') as this is what it 
lexically refers to but to replace 'historical' with 'biological' is a 
form of question begging in order to support an untenable 
position.Here's the above quote again with correct lexical alterations:

"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. 
[Intellect's/Thinkings] historical purpose has been to help a society 
find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies. [Intellect/Thinking] can 
do this well or poorly, depending on the concepts [Intellect/Thinking] 
invents for this purpose."
Lila Chapter 24


> It existed to ever lesser degrees in all preceding levels down to the Biological.

Back to disagreeing again as intellect/thinking did not pre-date biology.

> I get your point. You seem to be saying that the Intellectual Level arose as a separate Static Pattern of Values prior to the emergence of SOM.

Yep, and it's not just me. The intellectual level emerged from the 
social level at a much earlier stage than SOM which emerged around 
500BC. This is in accordance with the MoQ's description of evolutionary 
development of static patterns of Value.

> I take issue with this.
> Have we all not memorized by now the paragraphs where Pirsig passionately explains how Socrates was the founder of the Intellectual Level?

No. I've just searched the electronic editions of ZMM, Lila and the 
Lila's Child annotations and I can't see any mention of this. Bo might 
have said it at some point but I'm pretty certain that Pirsig wouldn't 
have said it and didn't say it. Can you point me to the quote? Or is 
this another misrepresentation/mis-interpretation of what Pirsig has 
said? BTW, as you're using what Pirsig has said to support your position 
have you now become a fundamentalist?

> Do we not all agree that by definition each level differs from the others by virtue of what it values?
>    

Probably not. I thought that each level was created by Value (or 
patterns of value if you want) not something that is doing the valuing. 
Patterns within a level will be valuing. I can see what you might be 
getting at, although I think there is a big difference.

> [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. [Well, Horse, I guess Pirsig "went off the deep end", then]

Not at that particular time - I thought that was an earlier period in 
his life.

> 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. [Nope.  Pirsig is unequivocal about this point - though he is not so unequivocal about others].
>    

Which point are you saying Pirsig was unequivocal about? That there were 
no Intellectual patterns of value and as a consequence no intellectual 
level before 500BC or that there were intellectual patterns and 
consequently a viable intellectual level?

> [mary]
> Yes. That is exactly what the liberal interpretation is saying, Horse, and if needed, we can all refer back to Pirsig's discussion of this as it relates to Socrates creation of the Intellectual Level "breaking free" from the Social.
>    

I believe that what you are referring to (5th century BC Athens?) was 
the starting point of this process (not the end point) and I also do not 
believe that Socrates made this point or that Pirsig says that he did. 
At least not anywhere that I can see so far. But just to clarify, are 
you saying that what we are calling SOM created the Intellectual level 
as this seems to be what you are implying.

>
> Again I see parallels with Christian Fundamentalist vs. Christian Liberal
> bickering.
>
> A literal interpretation of Pirsig will get us nowhere, because Pirsig,
> whether by design or not left the door wide open in many of these areas.  It
> is easier to interpret the Bible in many instances than it is to interpret
> our dear Mr. Pirsig.
>    

I don't think so. I think it's quite easy to misinterpret what Pirsig 
says if you start off with an incorrect assumption - i.e. SOL!
Cross referencing much of what Pirsig says in Lila, LC etc. more often 
than not clears up most apparent inconsistencies. Taking quotes and 
paragraphs out of context is often what causes confusion - question 
begging is another source of confusion. Both of these activities are 
prevalent (and necessary) in defence of Bo's ideas.

> I could once again paste in Pirsig's quotes on the subject of Platt and Bo's
> SOM interpretation, but surely we've all read them a million times by now
> and this post is too long as it is.
>
> If you read the Annotations [132? Et al] again, you will see just how
> carefully Pirsig has worded his statements.

> He is not saying that Platt and Bo are wrong.

Yes he is.
Annotation 129. I've always thought this is incorrect because many forms 
of intellect do not have a subject-object construction.

Incorrect means wrong. So he's saying that Platt and Bo are wrong! Also, 
other comments are far more serious than that they are merely wrong as 
he says, quite unequivocally, that their position undermines the MoQ. 
Wrong is far too mild.

Annotation 133. I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ........


> It would have been easy and simple for him to do so.

And he did. I think you're confusing this with Pirsig being diplomatic

> Instead he cautions that the SOM interpretation could be confusing to some and
> should thus be avoided.  Boy was he right.
>    

I think he goes a lot further than merely saying Bo's idea is wrong.
Annotation 133. ...It's just that I see a lowering of the quality of the 
MOQ itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that [SOM] 
which it opposes. Yeah, Pirsig was right - but maybe he should have been 
less diplomatic.

> I have asked these questions so many times without getting any answers that I hesitate to ask them again, but this is the crux of the matter.

My sincere apologies for not corresponding with you sooner Mary - 
entirely my fault in allowing myself to get sidetracked on other threads 
and domestic and artistic activities and I hope this post goes some way 
to amending my lack of communication with you. Definitely not my 
intention and I shall try not to let these things slip in future.

> If you are going to say that the Intellectual Level is more than "just SOM", I need
> ONE example.
>    

The Metaphysics of Quality - and this is endorsed by the guy that 
formulated it.

> Bullying, insults, profanity and bluster is not what I expect.
>    

Perhaps but, unfortunately, I expect insults, a patronising attitude, 
bloody-mindedness and unsubstantiated waffle from the originator of the 
position which you currently hold. It is rarely my intention to be rude 
but if someone is rude to me then I am quite likely to respond in kind. 
Especially if the offence is frequently repeated (to myself and others) 
when I have made attempts to be reasonable.


> Thank you,
> Mary
>    
My pleasure

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