[MD] Intellectual level of MOQ

[118]

Hi John “T-Rexx”


On 7/17/12, 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.

Mark
Your terminology reflects some confusion in terms of the levels.
Within the Social level, there are individuals.  Within the
intellectual level there is the individual intellect.  The intellect
is the individual’s ability to involve himself within a social or
environmental setting.  Such intellect evolves as a function of such
involvement.  We therefore have an individual whose intellect is a
result of a social level and the direct situation in which he finds
himself.  The intellect is not the intellectual level (more on that
below).

What you are pointing to, is a basis for such intellect using
deconstructionist terms, as opposed to functional terms.  That is,
what needs to be in place for the intellect to be able to express
itself.  There is a fine distinction here between evolution from and
evolution within.  Pirsig is speaking of the latter.

A worn example would be the relationship between software and
hardware.  One cannot rightly say that software evolves from hardware.
 Herein, software is an analogy for intellect, while hardware
encompasses the biological (for example).  In order for software to
evolve, something is required in addition to the hardware.  We can
call this “economic need”.  This “need” would be analogous to the
social level.  It is this need which can be considered as the cause
for software.  Certainly software depends on hardware, and can also
influence the direction of such hardware evolution.  This interaction
between levels is an important concept in understanding the levels
themselves.  To extend this to MoQ levels, the intellect evolves due
to social pressures.  This intellect is not the intellectual level.

We can consider the individual as a “mix” of all four levels.  If we
were to simplify the Darwinian model, we can encapsulate biological
evolution as a mix between the propensities of self-assembly by DNA on
one side, with environmental pressures on the other.  The final result
would be an expression of a life form.  This life form is a balance
between both sides (just presented) which are working together.  In
the same way, a human can be said to be a balance between the
inorganic, the biological, the social, and the intellectual levels.

This is important to understand.  All levels contribute to our present
existence according to MoQ.  It is also important not to confuse the
intellectual level with the intellect, in the same way that one should
not confuse the social level with the individual.  They are two
different things; just as we should not confuse the weather with the
wind.  While the social level helps guide the individual in terms of
behavior, it is not a sum of all the behaviors.  It operates at a
level different from the sum of such behaviors.  In the same way, the
intellectual level should not be confused with individual intellects.
In fact, the intellectual level guides the intellect and therefore is
more than the sum of its parts.

This form of understanding of the intellectual level is difficult to
encapsulate since we have the intellect at work trying to understand
its direction.  However, analogy (such as individual v social level)
makes such a thing possible, in a rough sense.  Our specific niche (as
humans) favors the intellect.  However, this does not make it better
than the plant niche (for example).  We are simply responding to
different environmental pressures.  These pressures are the balance
between the four levels.  This balance seems to be “out of balance”.
MoQ seeks a return to Quality which means a balance between the
intellect and the biological (or non-intellectual).  Or, a recognition
of the quality in everything.  Currently we are “top heavy”.  This is
standard Zen instruction in terms of balance where the physical must
be balanced with the spiritual.

John:
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.

Mark:
I do not want to affect your essay, so please take the following as
just another opinion.    The use of tools is not peculiar to man.
Using a branch to create a nest on is tool usage.  Monkeys use tools
with their hands.  A spider will create a web to catch flies.  There
is no doubt that man is the “king of tools”.  However, using the tool
model for a critical distinction falls apart on analysis.

So let us consider this idea of instinct v intellect (which also falls
apart).  What seems to differentiate the two is the complexity of
behavior, and premeditation.  Concerning the latter, one can learn how
to play tennis using the intellect, but after a while this becomes
instinctual.  The same with playing a piano, where no premeditation is
required after a while and the music flows directly from the mind to
the keys.

 The complexity is interesting to consider on a neurological basis.
One would consider a “knee jerk” to be automatic, whereas piano
playing to be intellectual.  The complexity lies in the number of
neurons which are involved in the behavior.  I studied neurobiology in
a previous career of psychopharmacology (even wrote a chapter on
serotonin receptors).  As I am sure you know, the brain contains a
vast quantity of nerve cells which are connect by an even greater
number of synapses.  In addition to nerve cells there are other cells,
which are being considered as functional in consciousness.  The point
is that it is complicated.

One can consider the brain as a large group of “knee jerk” pathways.
Nerve firing is binary, either all or nothing, however there is a more
“analogue” component to the brain which I won’t get into except to say
it is graded by concentrations.  The purpose of the brain is to make
complicated decisions which require more input than simply a tap below
the knee cap.  The term “redundant” is a good one for the brain, since
it has way more nerves than it needs in terms of our daily expression.
 It is all these extra pathways that lead to complex thoughts.
However, fundamentally, these thoughts can be considered using the
same model as a knee jerk.  It is just much more complicated.  All
thoughts represent, in some way, the brain dealing with that outside.
However, due to the shear redundancy, one can claim that some thoughts
have nothing to do with the environment, and are abstract.  They are
so far removed from the original environmental stimulus that they can
be said to operate independently.  This is where the intellect is
considered to be, according to MoQ.  However, as I started out saying,
creating a strict demarcation between instinct and intellect is purely
a matter of definition.  Also it is purely based on man’s presumed
difference from other species.  It is self-congratulating.

Hopefully it is becoming clear how the intellect can arise from a
biological function, and can also evolve according to social patterns.
 My guess is that the biological nature of our intellect has not
changed for a million years.  However, it has become much more
complex.  Whether this is good or not is an opinion.  One direction
that MoQ wishes to take is to caution against the over-dependence of
an individual on the conceptual part of existence.  This is indeed the
manifestation of static quality.  There is nothing wrong with static
quality if used appropriately.  Becoming bewitched by it is another
story.

John:
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.

Mark:
Yes, indeed, layers of dogma are the antithesis of moving towards
“betterness”.  Science has the same issue.  There are short periods of
creativity followed by long periods of complacency.  I feel that once
MoQ is all “sorted out”, it will be dead.  If one thinks of himself as
an individual composed of four levels this may be of use.  I could go
into the whole paradox of SOM, but I will leave that for another time
if anybody is interested in my opinion.

John:
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.

Mark:
Every term has its own complexity and ambiguity.  Often discussions
end up in “what the meaning of “is” is”.  SOM language is a tool, just
like a hammer.  It is a representational manner of sharing.  In order
to share, we must objectify that which we sense.  By objectifying it,
it becomes an object.  However, this is simply a transmission process.
 This is understood.  The point is to not be beguiled into thinking
that the word or concept IS the actual thing.  In the end, nothing is
definable through words, except another word.  It is a self contained
system of tools, and not things in themselves.

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

My suggestion is this:  Words and concepts are means for
communication.  The literal should be dismissed in favor of underlying
intentions of providing meaning.  So long as you provide adequate
analogies and examples for what it is that you are trying to impart
(that from within), the only people that will get on your case are the
strict literalists.  That is, of course, their domain, but not
necessarily the domain of many who would read your essays.  I believe
it is important to stress that you are providing a description, and
not a set of rules.  A set of rules can help paint a painting, but
they have nothing to do with the subject of the painting.  No doubt
you will get some feedback on your essay, some of it nonsensical.
Everything evolves through discussion here, so don’t worry about
making "mistakes".  Believe me, I am always changing my mind.

Cheers,
Mark


>
>
>
> 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
>