[MD] Intellectual Level

[Mary]

Hello Arlo,

Nice discussion.  Thank you for it.

 [Arlo]
.... If it begins that all "reality" can be divided into DQ and SQ, then it
itself MUST be one of these things.

[Mary]
Agreed.

 [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]
Nice.  I can go with this, but do you think blind is right or too strong?
Ever had the experience of seeing something but not grasping the import of
it?  "Maybe we are like that now", as you say.   


[Mary from before]
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".

[Mary]
I am saying that the MoQ says that.  Bummer.  I'm not saying that it should
say that, but I have been repeatedly informed that it does.  The confusion
is not mine, but appears to reside with trying to keep saying that.

[Arlo]
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.

[Mary]
Yes.  Certainly agree that Sci/Tech are not the highest attainment of the
metaphysics.  They might be of some other metaphysics, but not this one.
"Sci/Tech are one part of the I-Level".  Which part is that?  What do all
the "parts" of the  I-Level value, exactly?  Are they not required to be in
congruence?  A set of values is a set of values.  As with all sets, things
are either in the set or not in the set.  If they are in the set, they must
agree with each other, right?  Wrong?

[Arlo]
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]
Of course.

[Mary from before]
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. 

[Mary]
Do I?  So you content that the Intellectual Level does not value symbol
manipulation?  I mean, it sounds like you are placing symbol manipulation in
a prior level.  Is that so?

[Arlo]
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]
Are you saying that the POVs comprising a given level are not in accord with
each other?  This is news.  The POVs may indeed result in competing
patterns, but I don't know that the POVs themselves compete.  One life-form
devours another.  These are competing resultant patterns; however, the
overarching set of POVs at the Bio-Level are do not conflict or compete (for
example).

 [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]
One may discuss a metaphysics, but the metaphysics is not the discussion.  I
did not say it was out there.  I did not say it was anywhere in particular.
Secondly, you'd need to explain how discussion is not part and parcel of s/o
thinking.

 [Arlo]
The "dim" perception towards which the intellectual level gazes is towards
Dynamic Quality. 

[Mary]
How can you know the difference between DQ and the next level (see above)?

[Arlo]
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. 

[Mary]
Ok.

[Arlo]
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]
I think so?  Not sure about "gets him off Dynamically"?  Sorry?


[Mary from before]
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". 

[Mary]
Well, no.  Language is a start, but not the end.

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

[Mary]
No.  Maybe I enjoy being verbally attacked by old men?  Happens a lot around
here. ;-)

- M