[MD] Intellectual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse,

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> 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'.
>

Platt
About it all being natural and not supernatural I agree.  About "real" being
prior to intellect as counter-intuitive I think it's more accurate to say
it's counter-intellect which presumes a divided reality in order to create
communicable meaning. .

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."
>>
>
> Horse

> 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.
>

Platt
As Pirsig said, Quality cannot be defined. So its existence is intuitive.
For purposes of communication and discussion, e.g., to create a metaphysics,
it had to be divided into
DQ and SQ. Intellect demands division, words being bound to ideas, as you
rightly point out. .


      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.
>>
>

>  Horse
> 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.
>

Platt
Yes, all "discussion" requires division. But, I argue that the experience of
art is direct apprehension of Quality without intellect's interference,
i.e., sheer "knowing" without
words. Any discussion comes afterwards.

Horse

> 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.
>
> Horse

> 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.
>

Platt
If you define intellect as being able to "see" it's division of experience,
I think you stumble into the problem of an eye trying to see itself. I
prefer to think of our ability to witness the nature of our own thought as
something outside of intellect, namely intuition. Or, as in the quote that
Marsha recently posted, "That which observes greed is not greed; greed
cannot observe itself, but that which is not greed can observe it. This
observing is what is called 'Buddha' or 'Buddha wisdom' -- awareness of the
way things are."  I don't claim wisdom of any sort, so I settle for
intuition, that which understands that this moment is all there is with the
past and future only imaginary.

Our difference seems to boil down to what "intellect" refers to. But
whatever we call that which in us responds to a lilting melody or the truth
of a metaphysics, we agree it's what makes life worth living.

Best,
Platt



>
>