[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

Hi Arlo,

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Mark]
> My question was more towards the perception of free will or determinism.
>
> [Arlo]
> I don't think these are the only two options. Personally, I favor the
> "structuration" theories of, for three examples, Archer, Giddens and
> Bourdieu. While they all have different takes on this, the underlying idea
> is that agency is both enabled and constrained by structure, so "free will"
> (if you prefer that term) is made possible by the very constraints
> (determinism, if you you prefer) placed upon it. They are not opposing
> concepts, but mutually active.
>

[Mark]
Thanks for this Arlo, I will look it up.

>
>
> [Arlo]
> Anyway, Pirsig address the "choice" you are offering, and I think its
> relevant so I am going to post it.
>
> "The problems of free will versus determinism, of the relation of mind to
> matter, of the discontinuity of matter at the sub-atomic level, of the
> apparent purposelessness of the universe and the life within it are all
> monster platypi created by the subject-object metaphysics. ... In the
> Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent that
> one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without
> choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is
> undefinable, one's behavior is free." (LILA)
>
> I think this puts Pirsig in the structurationalist camp, and I think it
> shows there are more options, better options, that "choosing" between "free
> will" and "determinism".
>

[Mark]
Yes, I agree with this premise, perhaps I am a structurationalist.  I will
see if what I read corresponds to my thinking.

>
>  [Arlo]
> Well, if you think you can define the "pre-intellectual" by all means do
> so. I think given the responses by Pirsig, Einstein, Poincare, Peirce, Eco,
> Hofstater, Goedel and others this is ultimately a impossible task, and I
> think its a objectivist mindset that considers it possible. Maybe you'll
> come up with a better analogy than they did, but I think this is really
> trying to use the eye to see itself, or as I've said trying to use a mirror
> to capture its own reflection.
>

[Mark]
I understand the analogy of the eye.  Another more direct analogy would be
trying to understand our understanding (and understanding that...).  This is
indeed one of those circular references.  For this reason, I subscribe to
the creation of understanding as a paradigm.  That is, there is nothing to
search for, only something to create.  I believe that the creativity of the
mind is it's most valuable asset.  It can never discover, only create.  This
makes the impossible task not relevant.  You can't look for something if you
are creating it.  This may make some a little insecure since it is a shift,
so tread carefully.

>
>  [Arlo]
> I'm not sure Pirsig would consider the sub- or un-conscious manipulations
> of symbols to be "pre-intellectual". We have habituated abilities to
> manipulate symbols even when our immediate conscious focus is on something
> else. But the pre-intellectual awareness precedes this.
>

[Mark]
I have been reading up on prerational theory.  This may coincide with your
pre-intellectual awareness theory.  The following link may be of interest to
you and others on this subject.

http://jacquespaillard.apinc.org/pdf/274-prerational-intelligence-00.pdf

It does get off track and historical, but it would be interesting to hear
your view on the concept of prerational intelligence as it relates to
pre-intellectual awareness, more from a metaphysical point of view than a
psychological one.

Perhaps this concept of pre-intellectual awareness needs more input that
what Pirsig has presented, it is an important part of MOQ.

Cheers,
Mark

>
> 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
>