[MD] Step One

[John Carl]

Mark I'm glad you brought up Shlain, he has come up before and I think
Marsha's reading him, got about halfway through that book probably (me
too!).

When I read it, I ended up having to put it down because I got so excited
about the congruence with MoQ insights into classical and romantic reasoning
with the Romantic being actually the higher - that the great intellectual
leaps of modernity were prefigured by artistic genius.

One big reason I argue for a more inclusive term than "intellectual".

That you actually got to meet the guy is very cool, in my book.  First
Borges, now Shlain.  You sure rub elbows with my kind of people, Mark!

 It can be speculated that the "I" resides
> mainly in the cortex, and complex thought more in the frontal cortex.  Of
> course this is a simplification since there are connecting pathways all
> over
> the place.


Did you know there is a brain in your feet?  I just found out about this.
 The neural pathways for balance don't all go to the brain, there's part of
our nervous system that "stands on it's own feet"...I'm pausing to let the
laugh track die down...


>
> So, what we hold in active thought is a refined portion of what is going
> on;
> and there is a lot else going on which affects the active thought, even
> when
> we are asleep.  I would say that most of our thinking is not at the
> conscious level but outside of it.  The intellect therefore is not that
> simple, and certainly not measurable at this time.  Most insights and
> revelations may occur outside of our active thinking.  This could be where
> the Eureka comes from.  There is lots and lots of ruminating going on
> behind
> the scenes.


See, this is that part of that song of Jess Hill's, that keeps going through
my head because she puts it so nicely - there comes a time when the voice of
the wind becomes a sign from above.  The Eureka moment, as you call it.
 Upon which hinges everything.


That part of the brain which is being used for active
> concentrated thought does so for the purposes of communication (in my
> opinion).  Thus we believe we think in words.  What is perhaps really going
> on is wordless until the final stage.  The "I" is formed as a mirror.
>
>
My stance is that the "I" is socially created.  It's nurtured, more than
natured.  Admittedly the nature is all there to support this social
patterning, but I don't see the social patterning as arising from the
biological.


And so we get to the classical and romantic as concepts.  Linear thinking
> and lateral thinking, or wordy thinking and symbolic thinking, whatever,
> RMP
> describes it well.  Many believe that the two hemispheres have different
> functions in this regard, and much has been written about this.  In terms
> of
> the final thought itself, they are not that different since it is refined
> for expression, but how that thought is formed may be very different.
>
>
It's very interesting to ponder the fact that humans have dichotomous
existence with left brain/right brain and male/female reality.  In this
reality, all males have the same brains and systems as the females, but
they're repressed with hormones and such that cause the brains to function
somewhat differently, with sex differences emphasizing left or right half.



> If intellectual thought is a conglomeration of the deeper regions, and
> modern art, and music, are too, then it stands to reason that they will
> appear similar as final human expressions.  Intellectual thought may
> require
> much more training in terms of the expressive aspect, and show historical
> progression.  Art thinking may be more direct in that it doesn't need to
> memorize rules.  Music, if you are in a punk rock band and know the power
> chords is pretty direct too.  Classical music of course would have a later
> expression in music history, and current computer techniques allow all
> sorts
> of sounds and intervals.  In fact the history of thought can be paralleled
> to innovations in technology   At a fundamental level all these expressions
> are similar product of our brains.
>

Or to put in another way, all products of our brains is a mixture of these
differences.  There are extremes, but for the most part expression is a
balancing act.



>
> My opinion is that classifying the intellect as one thing or another is
> misleading.  Most of what we learn at every moment is unmeasurable.  It is
> a
>  complex and fluid system, of which our expressive thoughts are only the
> final aspect; the tip of an iceberg.
>
> Thanks for your patience.
>
>


My opinion is that classifying the intellect is only possible with
differentiation and opposition.  If there were no aspects, intellectual and
romantic, then the intellect would not realize intellect nor would the
romantic feel any good about love.  See what I mean?  In a sense, knowledge
requires differentiation.  You can ask Ham about it, if you don't believe
me.  I think he gets what I'm saying, but probably has the right label as to
epistemological vs. ontological dependencies.

Thus most of what we learn is unmeasurable in an absolute way, but is
knowable in a relative and nebulous way.  I guess a radical empiricist would
say that "knowing in a relatively nebulous" way is the moment of experience
and reality, and I'd agree.  But I'd point out that it takes just as much
idealistic faith to believe that, as it does so many other so-called
superstitions, that they ought not to turn their noses so sharply up at
absolute idealism.

Much fun, Mark, Mucho gracias,

Juan Carlos,



> Mark
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:58 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Dan,
> >
> > Dan:
> > > I don't recall you trying to engage me on anything but the definition
> > > of the intellectual level, which we both already know.
> >
> >
> > First off, I'm glad you actually do feel you have something to discuss
> with
> > me.  Even though you said you didn't.  I'll take it as a good thing you
> > changed your mind.  And I hope I can make it worth your while, somehow,
> as
> > well as, obviously, mine.
> >
> >
> >
> > > There has
> > > already been a huge waste of time here debating that particular
> > > question. And now you suggest Bo deserves an apology? What is unclear
> > > to you about the intellect?
> > >
> > >
> > John:
> >
> > Well, nothing, really.  I feel like I've got a good grasp on it - a
> working
> > model which serves me well and does arise from and resonate with, the
> MoQ.
> >
> > But I'm not sure how this model, of intellect, that I have in my head,
> > connects with the ideas of others.  Because there seem to be problems to
> > me,
> > in the ambiguity of  the word "intellect".  For intellect as we find it
> in
> > the dictionary we all use, is SOM, no question about it.  And if a whole
> > level is nothing but "intellect" in the classical and exact definition of
> > intellect, then Bo was right about the MoQ, and his ostracism and rebuke
> > are
> > a disgrace.
> >
> > But if there is more to intellect than the classical definition of
> > intellect.  If intellect, as I claim, includes romantic aspect as well as
> > the classical, includes and is actually led by Art, as an intellectual
> > expression, then Bo merely suffered a misunderstanding that nobody could
> > get
> > through his thick norwegian skull and there was no point in belaboring
> > fixed
> > positions, no blood, no foul. no apologies.
> >
> > So I guess, dan, to get back to your question, the issue of whether or
> not
> > Bo is owed, somewhat of an apology, depends upon the definition of
> > "intellect" which applies to "the intellecual level" and since those are
> > very basic, and yet important, MoQ terms, I proposed starting there in
> > response to your challenge that I needed to use MoQ terminology or
> > orthodoxy
> > or whatever it was that made you itch.  To see if we have basic
> > understanding there.  Before moving on.
> >
> > But since all you respond is, "this has already been covered" then I
> guess
> > I'll do what I always do when I get that response(usually from dmb) . I
> can
> > only   go,  "Oh. Kay."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > But I remind you, that it was your complaint that I am one of those
> > > > "confused people" so I'm just suggesting that I'm open to you
> pointing
> > > out
> > > > wherein my confusion lies.
> > >
> > > Dan:
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I see we are on the same page, response-wise at least.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> I attempted to draw you into a discussion centered around a few
> > > >> paragraphs from ZMM but you seemed pretty well set on your own
> > > >> interpretation... practice, practice, practice.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan, it's not like I didn't deal at all with your posting of climbing
> > the
> > > > mountain.  I certainly shed more thought, more time and more response
> > on
> > > > that post than anyone else did.  Not to mention that I've posted my
> own
> > > > snippet from ZAMM (which costs me more time than it does you since I
> > > don't
> > > > have no fancy digitized version) wherein RMP turns back from the peak
> > of
> > > the
> > > > mountain, leading to Chris's disparagement of "you're not very brave,
> > are
> > > > you."  And the author's response "no, but you'd be surprised at how
> > smart
> > > I
> > > > am."
> > >
> > > Dan:
> > >
> > > The ZMM version is available online at Henry Gurr's site and various
> > > other sites. A quick google will get you there. Thank you for your
> > > time in responding. I do appreciate it.
> > >
> > >
> > John:  Yeah... but there's also something about keeping it analog, that
> > appeals to me, in a weird way, dan.
> >
> > I have to regurgitate what I've assimilated biologically, rather than
> > mechanically, and for the most part,  I think that's a good thing.  I'm
> > gonna mostly stick with it.  Aren't those the real important parts of
> ZAMM
> > and Lila?  The things that stick out so strong that I don't need a
> > reference?
> >
> >
> > > > What does it portend?  It means that we are all different people, all
> > the
> > > > time, to all the different people around us and while everybody has
> > their
> > > > own expectations and preconceptions about their own relationships, it
> > > takes
> > > > the guy in the middle to see both sides, interpret them to each other
> > and
> > > > bring harmony into the room with a shrug, a smile, and a story.
> > >
> > > Dan:
> > > Yes I think the same thing happens in the discussion group. Some of us
> > > have been around a decade or more. I recall my old friend Krimel
> > > showing up unexpectedly with me greeting him with "asshole."
> >
> >
> > I remember that too, strong a memory as if it'd been real.  I see it
> > playing
> > in my head, Krimel, getting up on a barstool, hot and thirsty after a
> long
> > ride, you sitting cool and collected in the shadows, a cold beer and a
> > double barrell shotgun in your lap, and you let him have it with both
> > barrells, the minute he sat down.  I never did quite understand why.
>  Maybe
> > I should have asked.  I guess I didn't cuz I thought it'd be gauche.
> >  Peekin' into somebody else's story uninvited, like.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Now,
> > > someone who didn't know our history would no doubt take that greeting
> > > as an insult, but it wasn't meant that way at all. It was actually a
> > > term of endearment, if you will. I like Krimel a great deal. But he
> > > can be trying at times too, which is his style.
> > >
> > >
> > I love Krimel's style.  It's his metaphysics that seem weak to me.  But
> > that
> > makes it all the more fun, in a way.  A weak metaphysics being an
> > inadequate
> > foundation for debate, it's a constantly available target.  But you no
> > doubt
> > see it different.  You seem to be involved on layers I'm not really
> > playing,
> > dan.  As is Krimel.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > That isn't the reverence I am talking about, though. It is something
> > > you feel inside yourself. No one can tell you what it is. You can be
> > > pointed towards it, but there is a difference between being told how
> > > to walk, and walking. We were all too young to remember our first
> > > steps, but what a rush that must have been! That is the reverence I am
> > > pointing to.
> > >
> > >
> > Well... ok.  You're pointing to something insider yourself.  I get that.
> >  You feel a reverence for something, and you're showing it to me.  It's
> not
> > nice to clown with that.   Ever.  So ok.  There comes a time to drop
> one's
> > style, in the interest of truth and true communication.
> >
> > However, one can only go so far down that path, as an individual.  In
> order
> > for there to be meaning, congruence and harmony, there must be
> relationship
> > balanced in otherness.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dan:
> > > I address most all my posts here as "Hello everyone" to remind myself
> > > that anyone could be reading. Anyone. And I have a great deal of
> > > respect for Robert Pirsig. He is not only a wonderful writer and a
> > > warm and generous human being, he went out of his way by offering the
> > > annotations for LILA'S CHILD when he didn't have to. And so when
> > > someone disrespects him, it irks me. I can't help it.
> > >
> > >
> > Perhaps I should title mine, "hello everyone" too, for it is also in the
> > back of my mind that words go out to the world.  But since I remember
> that
> > clearly anyway, and usually have somebody specific in mind with whom I'm
> > discussing a concept, I like to use the meaningful name.  But that's just
> > me.
> >
> > I also have a great deal of respect for RMP.  Even though he never gave
> me
> > any annotations on anything.  He changed my life, that's for sure.  And
> > I've
> > always been very glad of the changes, encouraged by the encouragement
> found
> > in good writing.  Apt, timely and to the point.
> >
> > So when someone disrespects him, it irks me too.  And when somebody
> > misunderstands me, as disrespectful, then that irks me also.  Maybe even
> a
> > bit more, for it seems like a disrespect of me and my words, like even
> > though I've made it abundantly clear, time and again, how much a I
> respect
> > and appreciate the work and life of Robert M. Pirsig, that all that means
> > nothing, my word means nothing, and my style of flippancy and humour is
> > used
> > to judge my intent.
> >
> > Not my word, but my style.
> >
> > That irks me, dan.  irks me a lot.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > As for McWatt and Buchanan, I which them well in their careers and
> > > > endeavors.  But Their high road is not the same as my low road.  If
> you
> > > > think it'd be a good idea to restrict this list to sycophants and
> > > academics,
> > > > I suggest you put the idea to Horse and see what he thinks.
> > >
> > > Dan:
> > > I don't recall ever suggesting that. I would be excluded from the
> > > list. I have no academic standing and probably never will. Besides, I
> > > don't offer suggestions to Horse... he does a fine job and needs no
> > > help from me.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough.  I'm inclusivity-oriented, myself.  I like diversity of
> > opinion, variety of Religions, and plurality of intellect.  And like W.
> > James, have a keen appreciation for society's weirdos, being one myself,
> > and
> > all.
> >
> > >>
> > > > I'll take your word for it Dan.  You're the expert, after all.
> > >
> > > Dan:
> > > No I am not an expert. I am just a regular guy.
> > >
> > >
> > Well I think of you as a bit more than that dan.  I mean, sure,  that's
> all
> > any of us are.  I don't know anybody that isn't, except regular gals, but
> > we
> > all put our pants on one leg at a time.
> >
> > But some people, after putting on their pants, put out good words.  And I
> > respect those people, more than others who put out stupid words.   Even
> > when
> > the people who put out stupid words are more famous, and make lots more
> > money, I love and respect the men of good words, dan.  And I count you
> > amongst those.
> >
> >  I just do.  Whether you like me or not, I just do.  And ain't nuthin'
> you
> > can do about that.
> >
> > 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
>