[MD] Post-Intellectualism

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:06 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 rarely if ever write what I like as I write it. I just write.
The interpretation of whether I like it or not comes later. Writing is
a sort of zone (I suppose that's the word) where time has no meaning
and even my 'self' tends to fade away. Later, when I read what has
been written, I feel as if someone else wrote it.

I approach life in much the same way. If there is work to do, I do
it... not because I like it or dislike it, but simply because it needs
doing. I am not working to please the boss or to make money... that is
all secondary. It is the same with my art... I don't write to sell
books or to impress anyone or to disagree with them. All that, again,
is secondary.

What it comes down to is: either you do it or you don't. Period. It is
as simple or complex as you make it.

>
>
>
>>> 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.

Dan:
I'll check it out, John. Thanks! I've read a lot of Vonnegut's work
but not that one.

>
>
>>>> > 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:
Of course creative writing is more expansive than creating technical
manuals. Still, there are certain skill sets involved... some
instruction manuals are better than others, right?

>
>>>> 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.

Dan:
I don't think it is wise to begin dividing the world in that fashion
either. That's what the MOQ is meant to counter - a
subjective/objective vision that you're describing here. It is helpful
in elucidating the MOQ in that manner as long as it is understood the
levels like subjects and objects are not really 'out there.' They are
convenient shorthand symbols for arranging our ideas of the world.

>
>
>>
>>> 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.

Dan:
Who is perceiving that reality and is it objective? Can anyone perceive it?

>
>
>
>
>>> 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)

Dan:
Allow me, please:

"A rush of wind comes furiously now, down from the mountaintop. "The
ancient Greeks," I say, "who were the inventors of classical reason,
knew better than to use it exclusively to foretell the future. They
listened to the wind and predicted the future from that. That sounds
insane now. But why should the inventors of reason sound insane?"

"DeWeese squints. "How could they tell the future from the wind?"

"I don’t know, maybe the same way a painter can tell the future of his
painting by staring at the canvas. Our whole system of knowledge stems
from their results. We’ve yet to understand the methods that produced
these results."

Dan comments:
Here it is... right here! How does a writer tell the future of the
book they're writing? By staring at a blank screen, or paper if they
are old school. There is no other way. Reason is not going to create
anything new. That's why thinking about art only leads to dead ends.
The thinking comes later.

>
>
>>> 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:
Didn't you just answer your own question? The future is a projection,
static quality, a remnant of direct experience.

>
>
>
>>>> 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:
I wonder if he'd like some cheese with that whine of his. :-)

>>>
>>> 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.

Dan:
I tend to doubt that. But maybe you're right. I just hope it isn't
American Idol.

>
>>>
>>>> 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.

Dan:
That's the ideal, sure.

>
>
>
>>>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:
The few scientists that believe we can perfect technology are not
scientists in that sense of the word. I'm guessing laypeople are more
apt to believe in that scenario than any reputable scientist.

>
> 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.

Dan:
Platt? Is that you?

Think: doing more with less. I'm not fatalistic at all. The Tragedy of
the Commons is a 19th century myth that should not be taken too
literally. Foretelling a future based on the past fails to take into
account new and unexpected circumstances... in other words, Dynamic
Quality. That does not mean that the future is Dynamic Quality,
however.

>
>
>
>>>
>>>> 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:
By sharing an evolutionary history.

>
> 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:
Then again, it is good to have a hard life in a high quality world and
you don't even have to try. :-)

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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.

Dan:
Don't you mean less likely?

>
> Take Care,

You too. Thanks, John,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com