[MD] Intellectual level of MOQ

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:10 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.

Hi John, it is good to meet you.

>
> 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.

Dan:
I don't think this is quite right. Intellectual patterns of quality
and social patterns of quality share an evolutionary history but
otherwise they run contrary to one another. So far as the tabula rasa
concept Robert Pirsig talks about the intelligence of the cells versus
the intelligence of the mind here:

"The intelligence of the mind can't think of any reason to live, but
it goes on anyway because the intelligence of the cells can't think of
any reason to die."

"At ebb tide this cellular sexual activity is all so intellectually
vulgar and shunnable, but when the flood tide returns the vulgarity
magically turns into a high-quality attraction and there's a
deflection of mind by something that isn't mind at all and there's
some feeling of awe in this. The mind sitting detached, aloof and
discerning is suddenly rudely shoved aside by this other intelligence
which is stronger than its own."

"The language of mental intelligence has nothing to say to the cells
directly. They don't understand it. The language of the cells has
nothing to say to the mind directly. It doesn't speak that language
either. They are completely separate patterns."

Dan comments:
In my opinion RMP doesn't infer we are born with a blank slate at all.
In the MOQ there are many kinds of intelligence and intellect of the
mind is only one, not the oldest nor the greatest.

>
> 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.

Dan:
Seems to me that my old friend Doug Renselle did a book review on one
of Bergson's books and it might be this very one. Ah... here it is:

http://www.quantonics.com/Review_of_Bergsons_Creative_Evolution.html

I haven't read the book myself so I hesitate to comment on it. I think
by understanding that the biological level has an intelligence all its
own and it has nothing to do with the intelligence of the mind might
make these two philosophies more compatible.

>
> 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.

Dan:
The MOQ doesn't trash subject/object metaphysics at all. It only
encases it in a larger system of understanding. Could you point out
the layers of dogma that you see the MOQ accumulating? Perhaps that
might be a place to start.

>
> 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.

Dan:
Well, again, I don't see any of us speaking a MOQ based language. We
all use subject/object based language to make ourselves understood.
And that's okay. I like talking about baseball myself from time to
time as an analogy to experience and the MOQ. I remember having quite
a delightful discussion about a dog dish, of all things. So please
don't feel hamstrung. Join right in!

>
> Can someone, anyone, in the "squad" help me out of this impasse?

Dan:
I don't know if I've been of any help. If anything I have said is
unclear please let me know.

Thanks again,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com