[MD] Intellectual Level

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mary[
Nice.  I can go with this, but do you think blind is right or too strong?

[Arlo]
I think it's right, mostly, if we stay at a larger level of focus. That is, I
can say pretty strongly that an amoeba is "blind" (or unable to see) a city,
politics or celebrity.

If we zoom in on the boundaries, I think what you may see as a lower level
pattern "seeing" a higher level pattern is instead a very rudimentary pattern
on that higher level trying to make sense of more complex patterns evolving or
forming above it, but on the same level. 

[Mary]
Ever had the experience of seeing something but not grasping the import of it? 
"Maybe we are like that now", as you say. 

[Arlo]
Could be. I don't think even Pirsig could predict where/how/what his ideas will
evolve into or what effect they will have. I think back to Bill and Ted's
Excellent Adventure where their "be excellent to each other, and party on
dude!" became the motto of the future civilization.

[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. 

[Arlo]
If you are referring to the statement "that the highest attainment of that
metaphysics is to a set of PoVs which value symbol manipulation and science and
technology over social values", the question for me would be does the placement
of intellect as the highest moral static order mean that this is the highest
attainment of the MOQ? I don't think so. I think keeping DQ out of the static
hierarchy points to a trajectory that has a higher moral realization than
static intellectual patterns.

I think this is what Pirsig meant when he wrote, "The Metaphysics of Quality
says there are not just two codes of morals, there are actually five:
inorganic-chaotic, biological-inorganic, social-biological,
intellectual-social, and Dynamic-static." (LILA)

Given this, I'd say the "highest attainment" the MOQ points towards is the
pre-intellectual wellspring of DQ, and the "gumption" to be open to and aware
of this. 

[Mary]
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.

[Arlo]
Well I think this raises the important spectre of how we define that
commonality. What makes a biological pattern a biological pattern? Is it
carbon-basedness? Reproduction? DNA? What commonality does a virus have with a
human body that we'd call them both "biological patterns"? 

Pirsig offered the commonality for the intellectual level as being "symbol
manipulation", and while that's proven problematic for some I think its the
best answer offered so far. So both S/O metaphysics and Quality metaphysics
share the this commonality, even though one may be a virus and the other a
highly complex "body".

[Mary]
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]
No, and I hope I clarified this. I am saying that the intellectual level is the
value of symbol manipulation.  

On a side note, I cringe a bit when I read "the intellectual level values..."
(or things like this) because it seems to objectify the "level" into being some
sort of thing sitting there doing the valuing. I don't think there is "an
intellectual level" floating around in space making any such value decisions. 

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the "intellectual level" is itself an
"intellectual pattern" used by Pirsig to describe the aggregate or commonality
of perceived patterns of experience. On the same note, I'd say "the inorganic
level" is also an intellectual pattern of value. 

[Mary]
the overarching set of POVs at the Bio-Level are do not conflict or compete
(for example)

[Arlo]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Did I address this above? Or can
you rephrase?

[Mary]
One may discuss a metaphysics, but the metaphysics is not the discussion.

[Arlo]
What is it then? 

[Mary]
Secondly, you'd need to explain how discussion is not part and parcel of s/o
thinking.

[Arlo]
SOM is a very particular metaphysical stance that posits that the primary
division of reality is into subjects and objects. Ham's recent comments about
self/otherness being primary are a prime example of this. If your discussion
does not originate from this foundation, then the discussion is not "s/o
thinking".

Here is where again I think there is confusion between the "subjects" and
"objects" or grammar and "SOM", thinking that any formulated utterance that
uses a "subject" or "object" must be indicative of SOM.

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

[Arlo]
Well, to understand Quality, right, one needs to gaze into the pre-intellectual
and indefinable, but to understand Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, I think
language is what we do need.

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

[Arlo]
Define "old"? lol...