[MD] Intellect vs. Intellectualism

[John Carl]

Ho Platt,  I realize there is a disagreement between myself and Pirsig on
where emotion enters the picture in the biological-social-intellectual model
of reality.


> Hi John
> Hate to break it to you but in the Copleston papers Pirsig says, "In the
> MOQ
> feeling corresponds to biological quality." So SOM intellect that inhabits
> the
> intellectual level is still the most moral level in Pirsig's hierarchy, but
> with a
> fatal flaw. Feelings drop down to the biological level.
>
>
John:  It's my contention that all emotions are generated by an innate
self-caring that doesn't arise in mere biology, but arises with the idea or
conception of a self that is created in mammalian nurturing of a new self.
Lizards and snakes and fish have absolutely no emotional affect that I can
discern, so I therefore conclude that they have no emotions.  Dogs and
horses do display emotional affect, therefore I conclude they share with
humans, a social basis for the creation of emotional response.  I believe
emotions are social, not biological.  When you feel your heart beating or
your adrenaline rising, it's because of a perceived social interaction and
the biological is just the mechanism for a socially created feeling.

I realize this does differ from Pirsig's view, but hey, like Arlo is fond of
saying, it's perfectly valid to disagree with Pirsig, as long as done
explicitly and pointedly.





> John




>   The MoQ, which should have been
> > a synthesizer, instead has inadvertently come down on the side of
> > intellectualism with it's labeling.  And until that problem gets cleared
> > up,
> > I don't think we're going to get anywhere.
> >
>



> > Platt
> The problems clears itself up by holding the essence of MOQ outside the
> hierarchy where
> it rightly belongs for it cannot be a part of itself. By "essence" (a word
> Pirsig himself uses
> to identify the MOQ) is, as you say, an aesthetic sense. Further, as you
> correctly state,
> the aesthetic sense is the leading edge of evolution. This "Quality" sense
> is an inherent trait of all entities, from the lowliest atom to the highest
> artistic genius.
>
>
John:

The patterning of information meaningfully is the difference between a
chemistry professor and a heap of rotting meat.  I'd say that "patterning of
information" is as good an analogy of DQ as any.  But nevertheless, the
human mental realization of this reality is its own special category and I
firmly believe that labeling this realization solely as "intellectual" is
wrong and mis-guiding.

Platt:


> I suppose you can call this sense akin to feeling. But I think it's better
> to keep this finer, artistic sense apart from general crass feelings of
> hunger fear, greed, jealously, etc.
>
>
John:

I agree.  Those things, hunger, fear, etc.   stem from concern for self
which is an aspect of a social process which created the self in the first
place and instantiate in the real world as a competitive spirit where
selfish needs are met by a conniving intellectual.

But the finer artistic sense is attuned to what is good, apart from what is
self-serving.  The witness of Socrates drinking the poison attests to this
higher realization.

Platt:

In fact, I like to call this sense of the essence of things a meta-sense of
> which we have many including a meta-sense of perfection, truth, harmony and
> of course, value.
>
> For example, my meta-sense of "goodness" applies to your posts. Compared to
> some others they always seem "fresh" with challenging ideas.
>
>
John:
Thanks Platt.  In a narrow world of derogatory insults and misunderstanding,
it's words like yours which keep me here and striving for that harmony,
perfection and value that I believe is possible on this forum.

>From my faithful-I to yours,

 John