[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[John Carl]

Sorry for the tardy, Bo.  It's summertime and the livin' is busy...

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:50 PM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

> Good Man John.
>
> 11 May thou spaketh
>
> > What I believe, Bo, is that there has never been any time in human
> > history that there has not been intellectual - level thinking.  All
> > your talk of gods and myths being "social" is just silly.  Of course
> > the gods and myths are socially reinforced, just like our ideas of
> > "substance" and "cause and effect" and other ghosts of reason are also
> > socially reinforced through teaching.
>
> Why "intellectual" when it clearly is intelligence coupled with curiosity
> and awe, but I see that you have a hard time understanding the Q-
> levels, namely the control of the parent level.. Thus gods, mythological
> or mono-theist are all about creating bulwarks against the biological
> "barbarians at the gates".  A bit tongue-in-cheekish but a stone age
> tribe had not the means of creating a police force, consequently had to
> refer to the wrath of the gods if the members didn't toe the line.
>


Well I don't see it that way.  First, "biological controls" is a misnomer.
 Those do occur, but they occur "naturally", as in without
intellectual/intelligent manipulations.



>
> > If you argue the evolutionary development of a human from an ape-like
> > ancestor, I'll go along with you.  But I'll insist that until that
> > ape-like ancestor develops the uniquely human capacity of language
> > (not mere communicative grunting, but symbolic manipulation and
> > representation) THEN and only then do you have what I term, "a human".
> > And that symbolic language IS intellect.  All gods and myths arise
> > from symbolic representation of reality, and thus all are of 4th
> > level, or intellectual thinking.
>
> I have problems understanding  what you object to: the MOQ or my
> interpretation I didn't  think you preferred DMB's yet  about "intellect
> =symbolic language" is playing straight into his hand. The Q-
> intellectual level occurred when people realized that "language is
> symbols in contrast to the what it symbolizes" and moreover "that
> thoughts are subjective turning of mental wheels in contrast to the real
> world out there"  ... this and a million similar subject/object contrasts
> comprise the VALUE of the intellectual level. .
>
> I must make it short, I'm hampered by having to think and have other
> chores ... fully tongue in cheek, a great painting career is going down
> the drain due to this.
>
> Bodvar
>
> PS
> I saw in this morning's mail that you sided with DMB, I'm not much
> worried by that, your (embarrassing) understanding of the  MOQ
> automatically places you over there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > John Prev:
> >
> > > The desire to objectify reality in comprehensible terms is the human
> > > intellectual impulse, whether you're talking Norse mythologies or
> > > Big Bang, it's all intellect coping with reality, Bo.
> >
> > Bo:
> >
> >  The desire to order existence is Pirsig's "... no one can avoid
> > > metaphysics"
> >
> >
> > John Now:
> >
> > The "desire to order existence" is mine and everybody else's that
> > breathes, or Pirsig wouldn't have said "no one" he would have said "I"
> > as in "I can't avoid metaphysics".
> >
> > But this statement about "no one", if true,  is therefore further
> > evidence for my assertion that all human society forever  has
> > intellectual guidance of society  in the form of the underlying mythos
> > which helps them objectify and "get a handle on" their reality.
> >
> > No one can avoid metaphysics.
> >
> > Metaphysics is intellectual.
> >
> > Therefore, no one is non-intellectual.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bo:
> >
> >
> > > and IMO the urge to interpret reality coincided with the
> > > social level which was the result of biological intelligence
> > > reaching the Homo Sapiens plane where "to be/not be" was realized.
> >
> >
> > John:
> >
> > There's a tricky distinction between "realization of being" and "being
> > through realization".  I'd say the first is intellectual and the
> > second, social.
> >
> > And I'd put the social realization at the mammalian level, because
> > lizards and fish just don't present themselves that way to my
> > observation, and it makes logical sense that every self is nurtured
> > into existence by other - mothering.  Without which, we'd probably
> > think more like lizards.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bo:
> >
> >
> > > During the
> > > social era countless interpretations were conceived, from the
> > > so-called animism over the various mythologies to the most refined
> > > one, Semitic monotheism, but all were variations over - what to call
> > > it - Moral maybe.
> > >
> > >
> > John:
> >
> > See, you're really confused.  "Countless interpretations being
> > conceived" is a supremely intellectual activity.
> >
> > Let us define intellect from the handiest dictionary at the moment>
> >
> >  in·tel·lect
> > **
> > **
> > *a. * The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and
> > understanding. *b. * The ability to think abstractly or profoundly.
> >
> >
> >
> > There.  "Abstractly" I dunno profound, but I understand abstract.
> >
> > In an abstract way... :-)
> >
> > But the question, unkle, is do you?
> >
> > This interpretation urge or desire rose to a new level with SOM - to
> > the > intellectual level in my well known opinion - where all moral >
> > explanations were deemed superstition and subjective make-believe >
> > and the detached - objective - scientific approach was introduced.  In
> > > other words "to order existence" is not "to objectify it". The
> > ordering > began with the social level, but reached a new and improved
> > stage > with the intellectual level. Both requires intelligence and
> > that of the IQ > variations among the Stone Agers was no less than
> > among ourselves. > > > Bodvar > > Well enough to chew on for one quick
> > lunchtime.  I also must cook if I wish to eat!
> >
> > But in order to create order, the patterns must first be objectified.
> > All objects are only defined patterns in an overall system of order.
> > Therefore, ordering and objectifying are, if not synonomous, at least
> > metaphysically indistinguishable and I'm thinking you'd be well served
> > to come to K class with me some time for a refresher course or two!
> >
> > hungry John
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
> >
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>