[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Mary]

Hello Horse - and DMB, Platt, Bo, Marsha, John, Steve, Andre, Arlo, and
everyone else,

On Behalf Of Horse
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:14 AM
> 
> 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 

Common sense is an interesting concept, Horse, and one we can debate the
value and implications of at some other time.  I would enjoy exploring it,
but not for today.

It's unfortunate that I cannot read all the posts daily and keep up.  My
post was in way of general response to a whole series of posts from the week
previous.  In those I was frankly appalled (and I am not easily appalled) at
the level of nastiness directed at Marsha, Bo, Platt, John and others(?) by
Andre, DMB, Steve, yourself and others(?).  Go back and read the posts from
the last week in April and I know you will see it too.  Was the moon full?
I refuse to quote any of them here.  It was worthless trash talk.  Instead
of debating the MoQ, the group devolved into personal attacks.  At one point
it became so extreme that in my opinion, Andre owes Marsha a public apology.
The only generous explanation I can come up with for his attacks on her is
to imagine that he was drunk or high on crack at the time.  I really hope
this is so, because otherwise he was just showing his rear end in public.

What I got out of all this was that those who say the Intellectual Level is
just thinking itself stopped raising logical arguments at all and resorted
to bullying, sarcasm, profanity, and insults to make their point - and their
point seemed to be not that the Intellectual Level was not SOM - but that
the person saying so was stupid, lonely, anti-social, or otherwise
intellectually sub-par with the group.

The other odd thing I noticed was that I was sometimes denigrated in posts
directed at other people, but it seems that the person casting aspersions
upon me lacked the courage to say so directly to me.  I think in other
contexts this is known as gossip - a Social Level pattern of values.

So read between the lines, Horse.  The word "fundamentalist" was chosen for
a reason.  But enough about that.  The whole incident has passed and
everyone seems to be back to normal in the last 2 weeks, so it's all good.
:) 

 
> > 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.


[Mary Replies] 
Yeah, you're right.  Bo, you're not doing your arguments any service by brow
beating people with it.  In fact, when I think about the dynamics of the
group, it occurs to me that your blustering may have given others license to
sink as low as they did that week.

> 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Thanks, Horse!  Now we can get back to the discussion at hand.  I'm of the
opinion that, in fairness, what I understand you position to be is so at
odds with what I have come to understand about the MoQ that I despair of us
being able to reach mutual understanding.  This has been the problem all
along.  I wrote a post addressed to Mr. Pirsig earlier this week where I
tried to say what I have learned in as few words as possible.

I sense that you, Marsha, have the same problem.  How do you put into words
those things you have come to understand?  Sometimes people will ask a
question that demonstrates a lack of understanding of so many things that it
would take a fair sized book just to properly address the question!

That is why I said that the road to understanding the MoQ is not a straight
line, but a circle.


Let me explain it this way.  Let's say you are taking an advanced college
course in something.  As you have progressed in your college career you have
learned a set of foundational rules for this subject (doesn't matter what it
is) that guide you forward in your understanding.  These rules work and they
get pounded into you through course after course until you stop thinking
about them.  They are true for you and you stop considering their
implications.  They just are. 

But somewhere in your studies you reach a point where the rules you relied
on in all your previous courses appear to be at odds with a new concept you
are learning - but your instructor tells you they are not!  Perhaps he just
grins and gives you a knowing nod in the face of your confusion then sends
you off to do your homework.  What do you do?  

Moments like this are pivotal.  You can choose the route of falling back on
your understanding of the rules you've learned and construct a plausible way
to make that understanding fit.  Perhaps this works for a while.  For some
people it will work for their entire lives.  You will probably even be able
to pass the course this way and that gives you added confidence that you've
figured out what the instructor meant.  But maybe not.  Maybe after a while
you start to see cracks in your own understanding.  It's not as complete as
you thought, and you start to suspect there was more to it than the
instructor was saying on the surface.

You were not seeing the big picture before.  You were relying on the basic
rules as fed to you in the early courses and you had long ago ceased to
analyze their implications.  I cannot speak for others, but I sense that
those of us who view SOM as the Intellectual Level are working now with the
implications inherent in Patterns of Value.

A leap is required here and it is not possible for me to make it for you.
This is not meant to disparage you in any way.  It is rather intended to
challenge you to examine more deeply what you believe about the MoQ.  That
does not make you dumb.  That makes you of very high Quality.

There are no right or wrong answers.

> > [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.
> > ...


[Mary Replies] 
We are squwibbling here about things that don't matter.  This is not for me,
ask yourself why this is so important to you.  Then come back and tell me
what it is I think doesn't matter.

> > 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 Replies] 
Horse, you have argued yourself into an untenable position.

> > [mary]
> > Horse, of course thinking existed prior to SOM.
> 
> Good to hear we agree on something. 

[Mary Replies] 
If we agree on this, then you disagree with your own previous statements, so
I am not sure what you think.l

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. 

[Mary Replies] 
Historical does not include the biological?  Hmmmm.

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
> 


[Mary Replies] 
Exactly!

> 
> > 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?
> 


[Mary Replies]
The quotes below are entirely consistent with my view of the Intellectual
Level as SOM and with my additional view that thinking existed in
rudimentary form all the way back to the Biological.  When discussing
intelligence, one has to be mindful of "degree".  I do differ with John's
idea that even pre-biological objects exhibit intelligence.   

If you do not agree then I can only surmise that you do not fully understand
my position.  That's ok, why should you understand my position?  The more
important thing for you is to fully understand your own position.  Once you
do that, I think my position will become clear - whether you choose to agree
with it or not.

Lila Ch. 22:
There had been other comparable times, Phædrus supposed. The day the first
protozoans decided to get together to form a metazoan society. Or the day
the first freak fish, or whatever-it-was, decided to leave the water. Or,
within historical time, the day Socrates died to establish the independence
of intellectual patterns from their social origins.

Lila Ch. 24:
scientist may argue rationally that the moral question, "Is it all right to
murder your neighbor?" is not a scientific question. But can he argue that
the moral question, "Is it all right to fake your scientific data?" is not
a scientific question? Can he say, as a scientist, "The faking of
scientific data is no concern of science?" If he gets tricky and tries to
say that that is a moral question about science which is not a part of
science, then he has committed schizophrenia. He is admitting the
existence of a real world that science cannot comprehend.
What the Metaphysics of Quality makes clear is that it is only social
values and morals, particularly church values and morals, that science is
unconcerned with.
There are important historic reasons for this:
The doctrine of scientific disconnection from social morals goes all the
way back to the ancient Greek belief that thought is independent of
society, that it stands alone, born without parents. Ancient Greeks such
as Socrates and Pythagoras paved the way for the fundamental principle
behind science: that truth stands independently of social opinion.

> > 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]
> 


[Mary Replies] 
Yes I am saying that.  There was certainly intelligence and there was plenty
of thinking going on prior to this time, but the Intellectual Level did not
yet exist.  We had not yet taken thinking to the next level.  Before the
questioning started, thinking was in service to our social and biological
needs.  There was plenty of SOL, but it was not yet in service to anything
higher than social or biological needs.  How many different ways can I say
this? :)

> 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 Replies] 
The activity of thinking has existed since the time it evolved in many
species in the Biological Level.  

At some point in the Biological Level, a static latch occurred in many
species whereby they came to value cooperation as a survival strategy.  

At some further point beyond basic intra-species cooperation, humanity came
to value even more advanced cooperation and interaction.  

At first, it was merely to ensure biological survival as with many other
species, but interaction evolved into more elaborate social structures over
time.  

At some point, these social structures took on a life of their own which
valued greater Quality than mere biological survival.  This point marks the
emergence of the Social Level from the Biological.

To carry the thought forward, I'll propose one more thing.  I have already
stated that it was evolutionarily advanced cooperation and interaction which
spurred the creation of the Social Level 

- where the Social Level is defined as that set of patterns of value that
transcend those whose purpose is merely to support the Biological.  

Well, I further contend that art also resides at the Social Level.  

I think this because basic communication is a Biological function, but as
communication transcends Biological needs and also evolves into greater
complexity, it becomes Social Level communication, and art is nothing more
nor less than communication of ideas that transcend Biological needs.

The reason I do not place art in the Intellectual Level is because that is
not its purpose.  Art is not something we do in an attempt to thwart or
control Society.  

Art is simply a way to convey our brief touches with Dynamic Quality to
others.  

It is a form of communication.  Nothing more nor less.  

Art has no Intellectual or Social axe to grind inherently - though it
certainly has been used for such.

This leads me to one last thing.  I imagine us to differ on the question of
art because you may feel this in some way "demotes" art.  My answer to you
is "not at all".

Reality is Dynamic Quality.  All static patterns represent how someone or
something at some time made access to Dynamic Quality, found something of
value there and "returned to tell the tale" so to speak.  

Though there is a moral hierarchy among the levels, we must remember that
static patterns of value are how Dynamic Quality is represented and shared
with others at a level, be it Inorganic, Biological, etc.

The MoQ cannot be understood as linear.

This has grown much longer than I ever intended and the day is passing.  I
apologize for not addressing anything further along in your original post.
We will get to those ideas another time - I hope.

Thanks,
Mary