[MD] Intellectual level of MOQ

[Ian Glendinning]

Given that,
The non-contentious stuff (about social and intellectual) - in outline
(others will give you chapter and verse)

Same - both involve patterns of symbolic representation &
communication (therefore based on subjects and objects)

Different - intellect differs from social in that intellectual
manipulation involves individual freedom, not just socially enforced
patterns.

Contentious areas concern whether the definition of intellect includes
its evolution from SOMish to MoQish forms that need not only
manipulate subjects and objects. ie you're right that it's not always
clear or consistent where Pirsig meant his definition to end (hence
the fisticuffs).

Ian

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> My simple view (You've hit on the recurring problem the squad has -
> the definition of intellect - it always ends in tears) ...
>
> For the dogma to work the "hardwired" functionality can't be
> considered within the definition of MoQish "intellect". Simple as
> that.
>
> But like you I see social and intellect as orthogonal above biological
> = Tuukka had a great attempt at drawing the MoQ "layers" in more than
> 2 dimensions - to get rid of the illusion (on paper) that intellect
> arises over social. Clearly they co-evolve, with each other both on
> top of biological.
>
> But as I say this debate usually degenerates into fisticuffs over the
> definition(s) of intellect.
>
> Good luck
> Ian
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM, T-REXX Techs, Inc.
> <trexxtechs at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Greetings, everyone!
>>
>> I am the author of "Quality and Inspirationality (Part 1)" that was recently
>> posted on the robertpirsig.org website.  I am working on a rewrite of what
>> is to be Part 2, but I've hit a conceptual impasse, and I need help in
>> resolving it.
>>
>> Pirsig seems to maintain that there's no such thing as intellect outside a
>> social setting.  If I understand correctly, according to MOQ, intellect
>> evolves from the social level, not from the biological.  He seems to be
>> saying that we are born with a blank slate, and concepts get written on it
>> entirely from our social interactions.  But I can't get it through my head
>> that our brain would be no different from an ant's brain in that respect:
>> both blank, with nothing inherent in the biological architecture.  It seems
>> to me there's a lot of "meat" in a human brain, and I can't understand how
>> there could be no hardware functionality in it at all.
>>
>> My Part 2 essay is based on ideas from Bergson's Creative Evolution.  In his
>> development of the evolution story there's a biological trait he calls
>> intellect.  He distinguishes this trait from instinct by the form of innate
>> knowledge it displays.  Instinctive creatures have organic tools that are
>> parts of their bodies, and they know how to use them precisely on a limited
>> range of objects.  But intelligent creatures have an inherent capability of
>> making and using inorganic tools.  So instinct is an intimate and exact
>> knowledge of a limited range of objects.  But intellect is a knowledge of
>> forms that allows imprecise but effective action on an infinite array of
>> things, so the story goes.  This makes a lot of sense to me, and it seems on
>> the face of it entirely supportive of the philosophy of quality and the MOQ.
>> But it doesn't seem to be allowed in light of the MOQ's prescribed levels of
>> evolution.
>>
>> I believe in Pirsig's system of thought, and I passionately support his
>> motivation of wanting to help people see a better way of living.  But it
>> seems that MOQ has accumulated some layers of dogma that I can't get
>> through.  I feel that I'm not allowed to think of myself as an individual
>> self, because that would be forbidden SOM thinking. But I can't get past the
>> idea that there's a strong feeling of identification of myself, roughly in
>> the confines of a physical body and operating in a physical brain, as
>> separate from all the rest of what's out there.  I can't say I would become
>> "conscious" if I were somehow born as the only human being on some island.
>> But I can't imagine not being conscious and self aware if my "society" were
>> just my immediate parents.
>>
>> I also feel artificially restrained in the way I'm allowed to say things.
>> I'd like to talk about the distinction between self and not self that I feel
>> from the inside.  But MOQ says that's not allowed; that's SOM language.  But
>> still I feel it.  I'd like to talk about objects, like a baseball, in a sort
>> of common sense way, not in a specialized conceptual way, but again, that
>> seems to violate "political correctness".  I want to use and support and
>> contribute to MOQ, but I'm feeling hamstrung by it.
>>
>> Can someone, anyone, in the "squad" help me out of this impasse?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> John L. McConnell
>>
>> Office:  407-859-2637
>>
>> Cell:     321-438-6301
>>
>> Home:  407-857-2004
>>
>> Email:   <mailto:trexxtechs at bellsouth.net> trexxtechs at bellsouth.net
>>
>>
>>
>> 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