[MD] Intellectual level of MOQ

[Michael R. Brown]

When there's an argument over definitions, it's helpful to ask why the 
concept is needed at all. (Thanks for the pointer, Ayn!)

What gives rise to it? Just tradition? Because that's how it sounds like 
doing respectable philosophy?

If the question can be answered, the definition often comes clear.

Hence the cleansing helpfulness of James' "Does Consciousness Exist?"


MRB

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ian Glendinning
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:59 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual level of MOQ

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
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