[MD] Post-Intellectualism

[John Carl]

Dan,

 at last.


>>> Dan:
>>> Just write to one person then.
>>>
>>
>> Jc:  Yes, I think that is key.  Especially for me.  I'm not good at
>> addressing groups in print.  I don't do too bad at public speaking, when I
>> can get instant feedback on the reactions to my words, but print is a
>> distance communication.
>
> Dan:
> I always write to one person: me. If my (and I use that term loosely)
> words make me feel something, then perhaps they'll do the same with
> other people too. There is nothing distant about that.

Jc:  I agree that I have to like what I write, but I feel a compulsion
to convince some other, of some thing.
As I ponder it, usually that "other" is some authority with which I
disagree.   Which doesn't work out too well with me because authority
does not love being corrected.  Authority loves being authority.

I need to find somebody else.



>>> Dan:
>>> Well, I can see why Ciarin doesn't come to moq.discuss. They'd tear
>>> the poor guy apart. Not me, of course. They.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  :)
>>
>> I've been seeing his name pop up in a blog I read - Just Four Men. I don't
>> know if its the same guy, but it seems like him.  He's a good writer, I'll
>> give him that.  And there was a definite Pirsigian angle to his tale of
>> going to school to study philosophy and being unable to get anyone to
>> actually engage him and his ideas.  They were all "we're not here to learn
>> what YOU think".  I bet that's pretty common, actually.
>
> Dan:
> Well, I'm guessing if a person enrolls in a Philosophy 101 course they
> aren't going into it planning on learning what another student
> thinks... they want to learn what the great philosophers think.
>
> If you genuinely believe you have something to say, then you either A)
> become a professor and teach others, or B) write a book. You don't
> piss and moan because no one in your philosophy course wants to know
> what you think. Guess what: they don't! Get over it.

Jc:  Exactly.  See my problem above.


>>>
>> Jc:   Nice.  Another book I got at the same time as ZAMM and Alan Watts
>> was
>> Jacob Needleman's Sense of the Cosmos.  He puts it like this:
>>
>> "Plato, we may recall, understood by the word eros a striving for a new
>> creation through participation in something more fundamentally beautiful
>> and real....And then there is that most mysterious of ideas: God is love.
>> How are we to untangle all this?  How can we begin to approach the idea
>> that love is a property of reality, whether we call that reality God or
>> the
>> great universe?  Unless we  find some way into this idea we shall
>> inevitably remain stranded with the sundry modern psychological
>> perspectives on love: as something which affirms the ego or gratifies
>> sexual need."
>
> Dan:
> Unfortunately when I look into books like this, I inwardly cringe,
> just like I do when I read articles telling me that 42% of Americans
> don't believe in evolution and instead insist the earth is less than
> 10,000 years old. Do you see the damage that religion can do?
>
> Well, perhaps I should word that differently. It isn't religion itself
> that is problematical but rather the people who take a fundamentalist
> view of documents like the bible or the koran or any book thought to
> be the word of god.
>
> Jacob Needleman might have written a great book but I don't appreciate
> anyone ramming god down my throat. I always choke on it.
>

Jc:  Needleman talks about religion from the 4th level, not the third.
here he talks about Stoicism -

"The basic idea of Stoicism is that we are essentially one with the
great self, or Logos of the universe. That’s our true nature. We
exercise that true nature by the capacity of the mind to relate
consciously to its experiences — to accept, understand, or receive
them without the preferences of liking or disliking those experiences,
or responding with fear or craving. Nor does a true stoic try to
reinterpret experiences, make them more or less dramatic, or good or
bad. The stoic receives all experiences with an inner quiet."



>> Dan:
>>> I would say that most craftsmen, like the welder in ZMM, have glossed
>>> over the artistry of their work. They do what they do and that's it.
>>> They grow used to their work not being noticed. When someone
>>> compliments them on a job well done, like the narrator does in ZMM,
>>> it's almost like they think they're being made fun of. That doesn't
>>> mean what they do and do well is not art. They've simply forgotten
>>> that.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  I would say rather, that they have forgotten the part of them that is
>> an artist.
>
> Dan:
> I don't think you can separate the person and the artist. I mentioned
> this before in reference to something Arlo said about how artists
> should be classified by their art. I disagreed then and I disagree
> now.
>
> In the work-a-day world it is too easy to forget the artistry in one's
> endeavors, but that doesn't mean they have forgotten how to be an
> artist.

Jc: Yes, I see what you mean.

One of my favorite books on the subject, that I haven't read in a
while, is Vonnegut's Bluebeard.  A tale of an Abstract Impressionist
who secretly was a fantastically gifted illustrator.  If you haven't
read it, I highly recommend it.


>>> > Jc:  Anything can be art, but everything can't be art.  That would
>>> > make
>>> > the term meaningless.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Sure. Art arises through caring. Some people just don't care.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Jc:  A craftsman cares, that's for sure.  It's just that his scope of
>> caring is very limited, like intellect itself.  His parameters are
>> precisely defined by objective considerations.  +/- defined tolerances.
>> Within those parameters, he takes artistic care - that is, the same kind
>> of
>> caring that an artist takes and by "artist"  I mean one who specialized in
>> expanded (expanding) parameters.  Craftsmen are playing a finite game,
>> Artists an infinite one.
>
> Dan:
> I don't know a thing about painting but I have a hankering to do some
> watercolors. From what I understand about it so far, the painter is
> not unbounded by art but constrained by it, both by the medium they
> choose and their individual skill set. I would say the same applies
> for craftsmen too.

Jc:  Writing can be artful, but a technical manual is constrained a
lot more than a novel.

>>> Dan:
>>> I would say there is no 'real' past. The past is what we make it. Like
>>> all our perceptions, the past is filtered through our cultural lens.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:   Any present you can conceptualize in, is "past" by the time you
>> conceptualize it.  So in a sense, all knowledge is past.  But that doesn't
>> mean it's "only in your head".
>
> Dan:
> That isn't what I said. In the MOQ, only social and intellectual
> patterns are all in the head, so to speak. So it depends on what type
> of knowledge you're talking about.

Jc:  Art is taking what is in your head, and putting it on paper, or
canvas, or into rotisserie assemblage, but once it's out there, in the
world where other's can experience it it's not just in your head.
Likewise laws and ideas.  At the same time, the existence of a  rock
or an amoeba, is filtered by mental pre-conceptions also, so I'm not a
big fan of the "bottom levels objective, tow levels subjective" way of
looking at things.


>
>> JC:
>> So is reality, but that doesn't make it
>> "only".  But I agree, reality is filtered through our cultural leans.
>> Therefore the  past is the same as reality.
>
> Dan:
> Again, that depends on what reality you are talking about.
>

Jc:  Perceived reality.




>> JC:
>> But there's more to reality
>> than the past!  This fits so well, all of our experience and it also
>> illustrates DQ.  If the past is SQ, then DQ is the future.
>
> Dan:
> I don't think so. The future is an intellectualization based upon the
> past. Dynamic Quality becomes synonymous with experience in the MOQ.
> Direct experience comes first but it is not the future.
>

Jc:  I will set this aside for now.  But I have some more thinking to
do on Pirsig's equation of DQ with the future in ZAMM (altho he didn't
know it yet of course)


>> JC:
>> The future is
>> undefined. it isn't a simple derivative of the past, for there is an act
>> of
>> will, in between the two. Where both come into being.  An act of will that
>> is fundamentally ethical in nature.
>
> Dan:
> The future is always defined just as the past. Both exist as remnants
> of direct experience.
>


Jc:  I do not understand how the future can be a remnant of direct
experience.  The future, when brought into consciousness, is a
projection.



>>> Dan:
>>> If you have an itch, scratch it. If you're hungry, eat. If you're
>>> thirsty, drink. If something needs doing, do it. To me, that's peace
>>> of mind. That is the essence of artful engagement with the world.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  If it feels good, do it.
>>
>> Dan!  I didn't know you were a hippy, I thought you were a cowboy?
>
> Dan:
> Save a horse, ride a cowboy... that's my motto, at least to all the
> women, that is. :-)
>

Jc:  Speaking of horses, do you think we'll live to see a triple crown
winner in our lifetimes?  The owner of California Chrome (who lives in
Yuba city, less than 40 miles from me) pointed out how difficult it is
to race in the Belmont Stakes against rested horses.


>> Dan:
>>
>> Now, lots of people tend to think my life isn't what they believe it
>>> should be so they offer me little tidbits of well-meant advice. Most
>>> of the time, I smile and nod and pretend I'm listening.
>>>
>>
>> Jc:  You and I have that i n common.
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> They desire something better for me, bless them. I realize that. On
>>> the other hand, they have no idea about the path I'm on. They presume
>>> that they know about my path simply because they believe they know me.
>>> They believe I am just like them. I'm not.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  I think that comes from all those Tv's  and lack of books.  People do
>> tend to have a monolithic view of what life should be like, and it comes
>> from everybody tuned into the similar stations.  Sure, "Leave it to
>> Beaver"
>> has evolved into "Two Men and a Boy" But the principle remains that those
>> are the observed culture-bearers of our times.  And they're all insanely
>> materialistically oriented.    I know I'm over-reacting to it all, but
>> somehow that seems to be the right thing to do, in the moment.
>
> Dan:
> There is a looking glass that works both ways, but only for the adept.
> I get the feeling that the culture bearers for our time are not
> sitting in front of television sets and talking about what they
> watched the next day.
>

Jc: No, the culture-bearers of our time don't watch tv.  They are on tv.


>> I confess there is a beauty in a garden, that is beyond compare and even
>> the animals know this - they flock to a garden that is well-thought out
>> and
>> fecund.  The trick is to change the land slowly, a few changes at a time
>> and in harmony with what is already growing.  Weeds are the information
>> carriers to the gardener which tranmit the ideas of what will grow well
>> there.  Gardening is the ultimate art - lifelong and infinitely expansive
>> and inclusive.
>>
>
> Dan:
> I thought you were going to write something about that. See, I might
> get some use out of it. I put virtually no thought into my backyard
> garden. Whatever grows there, grows there. I don't plant anything nor
> do I uproot anything either. I've an area where I tend to sit and for
> some reason the plants seem to recognize that and don't try to crowd
> me out. I think that's good of them.
>
> Some years ago I bought a second hand book on wild herbs in Illinois
> and while I think I can identify a good twenty of them, I've yet to
> actually make an art of harvesting and using them. I know broad-leaf
> plantain and burdock are well known medicinal plants as are dandelions
> and ginger root and all of them grow out there.
>
> Time... I need more time...
>

Jc:  amen to that.


>>
>>> Jc;  And when we apply our human words, to non-human nature, we are prone
>>> to mistaken interpretation.  Is my point.
>>
>> Dan:
>>> If you understand science at all, then you know mistakes are the norm.
>>> That's how we learn. Old theories are constantly being replace with
>>> new ones. And really, the only way we can interpret nature is through
>>> our humanness, so to speak.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  Right here, is where my entry point into the problem of values in the
>> first place.  The Arrogance of Humanism.  It's not that we have anything
>> better than our human reason, to figure out the world, its how much
>> confidence we place in human reason, as our source of values.  Nature
>> didn't obtain values from human reason, human reason obtains values from
>> nature.  Those values are the heart of our evolutionary being.  So first,
>> do no harm.  Respect.
>
> Dan:
> We are all human here, unless perchance there are toasters and
> microwaves out there reading these words. Human values are what we
> have to work with. I don't disagree with you but neither do I see any
> alternative.
>

Jc:  The key is, I think, to stay humble.  To realize that we arose
out of nature and thus view it as our teacher and not our resource.



>>JC:
>> I got into it with Arlo a bit, on the subject of humanism but I have to
>> mention to you all, that Eherenfeld predicted three consequences of
>> Humanism that have come true:  The inevitability  of nuclear power plant
>> accidents - because all factors cannot be controlled (this was also
>> confirmed by subsequent chaos theory) 2.  The losing race between
>> antibiotics and staphylococcus. (he was an MD)  3.  Greenhouse gases
>> affecting our planetary weather.  So I think he was pretty right on, after
>> all this time.
>
> Dan:
> Oddly, number one is directly related to number three in that nuclear
> power is not a source of greenhouse gases. Are there going to be
> accidents? Sure. I don't think it takes a genius to figure that out.

Jc:  He was speaking to the hubris of the post-war optimism in science
and technology to solve all our problems.  To the assertion that we
can through reason, perfect our technology.

Dan:

> And so far as number 2 goes, everything in moderation. I know folk who
> routinely pop antibiotics every time they sneeze... smart people too.
> They don't seem to understand the consequences and when I say
> something  they look at me like I'm the crazy one.
>
> Unless we all go back to living in caves and beating each other over
> the head with clubs, this is the world we've got.
>

Jc:  I'm  fatalistic also.  You've heard of the Tragedy of the
Commons?  Well today we are experiencing that tragedy.  It would be
nice if everybody else diminished their carbon output, but since
that's not gonna happen, I wanna make sure I get mine.  That's the way
the world ends.



>>
>>> Nature is more a codependency, than a competition.  Competition is a
>>> human
>>> > term.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Competition doesn't mean to utterly defeat one another. Rather, it
>>> tends to make all parties stronger and more resilient. Now, when you
>>> start talking about the monarch butterfly, you have to bring Monsanto
>>> into the equation. We don't see monarchs in this part of the country
>>> any longer, thanks to the prolific use of weedkiller which has wiped
>>> out all the milkweed plants that used to flourish here.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  That's good, right?  Man has won the competition against butterflies,
>> and milkweed.
>>
>> I just don't think competition is the right term for the way levels
>> interact and resonate.  Intellectual science is not in competition with
>> biological beings. It's more complicated than that.  Competition is a term
>> that mainly pertains to social patterns.
>
> Dan:
> Intellectual patterns seek to usurp social patterns that enslave the
> biological individual.

Jc:  If the levels are mainly discreet, then how can they usurp one another?

Dan:

They say knowledge is power. Instead of working
> at Micky D's or Wally World or laying sleazy men for a quarter an hour
> and no benefits, those with an education (even if they're self-taught,
> mind you - think Maya Angelou) enable their lives to become something
> better.
>

Jc: It's hard to have a good life in a low-quality world but god
knows, I'm trying.

>>
>>
>>>> Dan:
>>> >> So now you're saying the MOQ is both a traditional and a bad
>>> >> metaphysics? "...ethical ground of types" seems to correspond quite
>>> >> nicely to what the MOQ is saying or perhaps I am misreading it.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > Jc:  Like I said, it's a certain interpretation of Pirsig I have
>>> > problems
>>> > with.  The MoQ itself, not so much.  But yes, I agree with what Randall
>>> > Auxier saying about Royce, sounds a lot like Pirsig to me.  But then
>>> there
>>> > are many interpreters of Royce, who read him as an absolutist and
>>> > that's
>>> > not Pirsig at all.  But then, according to Auxier, neither is it Royce!
>>> > Whew.  It's a good thing we have infinite time, to work all this out.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> I've been on this list a long time and I have yet to see anyone else's
>>> interpretation of the MOQ that I agree with. I think we come close
>>> many times, and I also think each of us are blind to certain nuances
>>> that others can lend us insight into.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  True, but mystifying.  Why can't everybody just see it like I do?
>> Heh.
>
> Dan:
> Well, because we'd all be wrong then. :-)
>
>

You are right, of course.  quality is found in diversity.  Whether its
a social pluralism, an intellectual variety or a biological diversity
- the more you have, the more likely that some bad virus or politics
or idea is gonna wipe us out.

Take Care,

John