[MD] Intellectual Level

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mary]
DQ is also part of the system he describes, though that is beside the point.

[Arlo]
Well sure it is. But this only demonstrates my point. Descriptions of "reality"
are themselves part of the "reality" they describe. The MOQ, as a description
of "reality", has to be part of the "reality" it describes. If it begins that
all "reality" can be divided into DQ and SQ, then it itself MUST be one of
these things.

[Mary]
Does he imagine that at no time in any future could there possibly be any set
of patterns of value that might transcend the set currently valued at the
Intellectual?

[Arlo]
I'd imagine that there most certainly will be a continuation of evolution, but
if we look at the MOQ we see that there is no way for a level to be aware of
the levels above it. Carbon atoms are "blind" to amoebas, amoebas are "blind"
to cities, etc. Levels can look from the top down, but they can't look up at
levels above them. So whatever evolves next is probably something we will be
"blind" to, we will be like red-blood cells in a larger organism we will never
see. Indeed, we may be now! Imagine for a moment that an amoeba was describing
"reality" and coming up with a MOQ. This Amoeba MOQ would "stop" at the
biological level. It could see no higher. Maybe we are like that now. Maybe we
are amoebas thinking we are the highest and greatest and final end to
evolution. 

[Mary]
If you build up a metaphysics that is in opposition to S/O logic, as we have
here, yet state that the highest attainment of that metaphysics is to a set of
PoVs which value symbol manipulation and science and technology over social
values, then where do you put the patterns of value that say the symbol
manipulation and science/tech are not the most valuable?

[Arlo]
You've confused two things here, and are saying that the MOQ states two
contradictory things (1) "that the highest attainment of that metaphysics is to
a set of PoVs which value symbol manipulation and science and technology over
social values" and (2) "that [] the symbol manipulation and science/tech are
not the most valuable".

The MOQ does indeed put intellectual patterns as a higher set of moral patterns
than social patterns, but it does not say that "science and technology" are
"the highest attainment of that metaphysics". "Science and technology" are one
part of the intellectual level.

In the same way that the biological level is comprised of a variance of
patterns of a range of complexity, stretching from viruses to human bodies, and
the social level stretches from a simple coordinated activities between two
people to complex behemoths like urban-ness and politics, the intellectual
level is also not "flat" but has great depth.

[Mary]
How can one level value the subject/object logic which has given us symbol
manipulation and science and technology and at the same time not value it?

[Arlo]
First, you have your initial statement here backwards. It is symbol
manipulation which had given us s/o logic and science and technology, not the
other way around. 

As such the intellectual level "values" symbol manipulation, which includes
metaphysics. Just as on every other level there are competing patterns of these
values, so too are there competing patterns of value within the intellectual
level.

[Mary]
Yes, the only way to discuss a metaphysics is at the Intellectual Level where
S/O paradoxes exist. 

[Arlo]
First, a metaphysics is a discussion itself, it is not something "out there"
that we see and talk about. Second, specifically "S/O paradoxes" are not a
function of the intellectual level but of S/O thinking. 

[Mary]
Yet just as values at the Social Level can dimly perceive the value of
Intellectual pursuits, so the Intellectual discussion can dimly perceive the
value of the transcendent patterns it is discussing.

[Arlo]
The "dim" perception towards which the intellectual level gazes is towards
Dynamic Quality. That most certainly is "transcendent" to its patterns of
value. I don't think there is anything "dim" about the perception of value
Pirsig's MOQ offers. I think it is quite visible. 

What we "dimly" perceive is Dynamic Quality. "A "dim perception of he knows not
what" gets him off Dynamically. Later he generates static patterns of thought
to explain the situation." (LILA)

[Mary]
you can't learn the meaning of saying the world is Quality before substance by
talking about it...

[Arlo]
Sure you can, you do and we are. Your "discussion" with Pirsig via his books
probably taught you a great deal about the "meaning of saying the world is
Quality before substance". 

If "talking about it" didn't help us learn about its meaning, why are you here?
Social networking?