[MD] Intellectual Level

[Horse]

Hi Platt

On 17/11/2010 20:40, Platt Holden wrote:
>> Horse
>> >  I cannot see any reference by Pirsig to show that symbols are imaginary or
>> >  not real so in what sense are you using the word 'real'?
>> >  Do you mean that something is not real if it does not physically exist? Do
>> >  you mean that if something is not real then it has no existence or is not
>> >  any part of reality - i.e. it cannot be experienced? Or do you mean
>> >  something else?
>> >
> Platt
> I'm using "real" in the mystic sense. It is experienced in many ways prior
> to thought. Meditation is one of those ways. Perhaps this from Lila will
> make my position clearer:
>
> "(Mystics) share a common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is
> outside language; that language splits things up into parts while the true
> nature of reality is undivided. Zen, which is a mystic religion, argues that
> the illusion of dividedness can be overcome by meditation." (Lila,5)

OK - I can see what you appear to mean now by unreal. What is real is 
that which comes before thought or awareness. In MoQ terms this is the 
pre-conceptual aspect of Quality or DQ.
One thing I would say here though, and is the reason I was pushing you 
for clarification, is that using the term 'real' in this way is 
counter-intuitive. As I see it, the term 'Unreal' fits this aspect of 
Quality in the sense that what is unreal effectively becomes an 
abbreviation and concatenation of the expression 'Undivided Reality'! 
This just seems to be, for me at least, not a criticism of what you're 
saying, just more intuitive. For me.
Whichever way we use it though, as far as I can see , this still keeps 
it within the realms of naturalism - in the sense that what is undivided 
is natural or of nature. In the same sense that Quality (the undivided 
whole - DQ/SQ) is about the natural and not the 'supernatural'.

> Key words - "fundamental reality" "outside language"  "illusion" - thus
> words, analogues, thoughts are imaginary, that is, symbols created by the
> mind, easily manipulated "to find or make a reason for everything one has a
> mind to do."

Ok - so the words that are used to express ideas are separate from what 
it is that the idea is about. So the word 'Cat' maps onto or binds to 
the general idea of a cat and to particular instances of cat - such as 
Uto or Tiddles - but is not that which it binds to! Words then become 
part of the divided reality of static patterns of value. I think this is 
where I find the use of 'Unreal' to describe words, thoughts analogues 
etc. counter-intuitive.
Words may be created but are not the same as what they bind to, but they 
still need to bind to something or they have no meaning. If I use the 
word 'Threkspanglif', it has no meaning unless we share some common 
knowledge of what I am referring to.
So, if words are part of the divided nature of reality then, it's fair 
to say, so are the other levels and static patterns which are bound to 
the words used to describe them - i.e. a referent. Static quality is the 
realm of the unreal in your terms. So Quality is pre-conceptual (DQ) and 
conceptual (SQ). Is this a fair summary of what you're saying.


> As Pirsig wrote in ZAMM, "We create the world in which we live. All of it.
> Every last bit of it," and we call what we invent "reality." But, as
> semanticists wisely point out, "The word is NOT the thing."
>
> As s connoisseur of music, you must know whereof I (and Pirsig) speak.

Well, I'm a musician (not sure about the connoisseur :) ) but I think I 
see what you mean. Even here though words still have to map/bind to 
something if there is a discussion about music. I think the same applies 
to all forms of art.
Also creating music still requires thinking about what it is you're 
creating and the language of music is every bit as complex as many other 
languages. However, the language of music is not exclusively bound to 
subjects and objects as I can think about music without invoking either.
I would also be amazed to find art that is created without intellect - 
I'm not saying they're the same thing but I cannot imagine how they 
could be seen as completely separate. I think that, from my own 
experience of both sides of the process, both creation and appreciation 
of art requires intellectual capability - i.e. the ability to think 
about what you're doing in terms of what it is you're creating. It is 
not just about words or thoughts - intellect allows us to imagine what 
it is we are creating during the process of creation.
So this brings us back to your original comment:

[Platt]
SOM is the level of manipulation of imaginary symbols which are taken bysome to have the same reality as concrete material existence.

This would be more properly put, within MoQ terminology as:

SOM is the manipulation of imaginary symbols which are taken by  some to have the same reality as concrete material existence [reification]. Intellect allows us to go beyond SOM and realise the disconnection of the imagined and the concrete during the process of artistic creation.

In other words, intellect is the means to bypass the reification process improperly dictated by SOM. This gives Intellect greater power than SOM.


Cheer


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