[MD] Post-Intellectualism

[John Carl]

Dan,

I have a lot of questions about this interpretation that Ant offered me.
It sounds really good, but I'm unsure of the relation between the levels
and the Dynamic.  So I appreciate your taking time to mull it over with me.


Dan:
> I'm afraid I disagree with a Dynamic level in the MOQ. That doesn't
> seem right. I think Robert Pirsig says something about he supposes it
> could be called a code of art but he refuses to go there. Well, here,
> read it for yourself:
>
> "As Phaedrus had gotten into them he had seen that the isolation of
> these static moral codes was important. They were really little moral
> empires all their own, as separate from one another as the static
> levels whose conflicts they resolved:
>
>
Jc:  I have trouble with that, at least as it pertains to the 3rd and 4th.
Society and Intellect are so intertwined - all intellect is predicated upon
socially derived symbology and all social patterns have some sort of
guiding 4th level metaphysical underpinnings of which they are
unconscious.  When you try and apply the analytical knife, the subject gets
very slippery.  Pirsig himself said when it comes to social patterns, it's
hard to picture anything that isn't one.

And yet, there is a way of thinking about problems in two different ways -
you can rely upon social authority, or you can think  for yourself about
what seems right to you.  But if that's the dividing line, then why does
dmb constantly harp on me for not following his authority?  It's a
conundrum you see.

Dan:


> "First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
> biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes
> that established the supremacy of the social order over biological
> life­ conventional morals- proscriptions against drugs, murder,
> adultery, theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that
> established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social
> order-democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the
> press. Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code.
> He supposed you could call it a "code of Art" or something like that,
> but art is usually thought of as such a frill that that title
> undercuts its importance." [Lila]
>
> Let's compare that to an excerpt from Ant's post:
>
> "As we know the MOQ divides static reality into four levels which are
> put in a hierarchy of moral orders starting with the least "moral" (or
> less developed along the path of cosmological evolution) to the most
> moral i.e. in evolutionary order: inorganic, biological, social and
> intellectual.
>
> "In addition to the four static levels, we also have the Dynamic level
> (or Code of Art) above the static hierarchy.  This applies to the
> rules (or, just as equally, non-rules) that a fine artist might apply
> to their work where what "feels right" on the canvas, stone or wood is
> more important than anything else such as making intellectual sense or
> being socially acceptable." [Anthony McWatt]
>
> Dan comments:
> Now, if 'Dynamic level' was changed to 'Dynamic morality' I think it
> would read better and more in line with the MOQ.
>


Jc:  Yes, I see what you mean.  That works better for the 4th, also.  How
can you call something that is theoretically unbounded, a level?  Where is
the limit to intellectual patterning?  You can always conceptualize your
conceptualizations again and again.



>
> >
> >> Dan:
> >> Well, I rarely if ever write what I like as I write it. I just write.
> >
> > Jc:  You must be a lot pickier than me.
>
> Dan:
> I think once a person is able to get something down... be it a story,
> a poem, a song, whatever... then the intellectualization begins. I
> don't think it is a matter of being picky or being anything, for that
> matter. Just do it. That is the essence of art.
>
>
Jc:  I'm reading a book right now my eldest brought home from college,
called Bird By Bird, by Anne Lamott who is saying something similar in the
current chapter - Shitty First Drafts.  Here's what I just read - "A friend
of mine says that the first draft is the down draft--you just get it down.
The second draft is the up draft-- you fix it up.  And the third draft is
the dental draft, where you check every tooth, to see if it's loose or
cramped or decayed, or even, God help us, healthy."





> JC:
> > I aim at liking what I write
> > and by that I mean, it matches an internal idea of expression.  If I
> > didn't like it, I'd write something I did.
>
> Dan:
> That comes later. Sometimes when I look back over what I've written, I
> realize it just isn't working. My junk folder is full of unfinished
> short stories and manuscripts that I find unsatisfactory for one
> reason or another. Someday that may change so I save everything.
>
> I can't let that stop my writing, however. If I did, I wouldn't write
> at all. When I am actively writing, liking and not liking it has no
> meaning.
>
>
Jc:  Yes, that makes sense.  My drive is also full of unfinished short
stories.  It'd be interesting to go back through them some day.


> >
> > Dan:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Jc:  Well I don't disagree with that, it's your experience after all.
> > But it's not mine.  I need satisfaction in the moment.  And expressing
> > textually, the truth of now, makes me happy.  Satisfies.  Scratches a
> > certain itch.  Or I wouldn't do it.
>
> Dan:
> To me, there is no truth of now. As an intellectual pattern, truth comes
> later.
>
> Jc:  I was referring to the kind of writing I'm doing here - which isn't
so much art as debate.  Hopefully artful debate, but it's more in the
moment of what seems good, and there's little revision.  Writing a story is
different but truth is the moral effort you take in saying what you really
mean.  Sincerity, I guess is a better word for it than "truth".  As Pontius
Pilate said to Jesus "what is truth?"  A good question,  to which the
Savior gave no answer.



> JC:
> > And the entire effort is fraught
> > with meaning.  It's understanding meaning and creative of new meaning
> > and sometimes even meaningless, but in a meaningful way.  If there
> > isn't a meaning, then I've got nothing to say.
>
> Dan:
> Often times it is exactly when I have nothing to say that I say it
> best. It is too easy to get hung up on waiting for the moment when I
> have something to say. Just write. There is no secret to it. There are
> a million excuses not to write. There is only one reason to write. Not
> for truth, or satisfaction, or because you have something meaningful
> to say, or because you like it, or any of that crap.
>
> Write because it is better than not writing. Period.
>
> >
>

Jc:  Well you are certainly mirroring Lamott's advice.  I believe you.  I'm
not very good at that but I think that has more to do with the structure of
the rest of my life than a conscious choice on my part.  But maybe not.
Food for thought.



> > Dan:
> >
> >  Later, when I read what has
> >> been written, I feel as if someone else wrote it.
> >>
> >
> > Jc:  I think that's always true.  The accomplishments of the
> > individual are all in the past, and while that might be our history,
> > we are more in the now than our history.
>
> Dan:
> We as intellectualizations are always in the past. That's what I'm
> telling you, or attempting to.
>
>
Jc:  And here we have the crux of our earlier discussion of the dynamic
morality.  Intellectual, social, etc, are patterns of staticity - that is,
the past.  But that's not the whole picture of our existence. It's not even
the best part!  People who think they've attained the height of
intellectual prowess, are just stuck in a higher dimension.  An
anti-intellectual hippy, is better off than them.


>
> > Dan:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Jc:  Ah, I see what you mean.  Focusing in upon the primary
> > experience.  That sounds good.  Again, I'm not built that way.
>
> Dan:
> Why is that?
>
>
Jc:  I don't know, Dan.  I just am.  I think about stuff, and connect it up
with other stuff, all the time.  Everything has connection and connations
that are infinite in scope and it's not a point of being driven to the end
of them all, it's a point of being driven to the good of them all.  How
many mirrors do I need?  Enough to get me peace of mind.  But I seem to do
a lot of processing about the big picture, even when I should be focusing
more upon the little.



> >
> > Dan:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Jc:  Sure.  And most of the time, using the scientific method on
> > motorcycle maintenance is over-complicating the matter.   Just like
> > philosophizing when you should be working.  Philosophy is the
> > scientific method of rhetoric, in a way.  I guess I just have a dreamy
> > personality.  I've been plenty of accused of that on the job.
>
> Dan:
> I use whatever tools are on hand for the completion of whatever task
> is before me. The scientific method seems perfectly suited for
> motorcycle maintenance, in my opinion. My bike won't start. What's
> wrong with the darned thing? Kicking it doesn't help. Learn as much as
> you can about it. Read the instruction manual. Form a hypothesis.
> Pounding it with a hammer doesn't help. Experiment with something
> else. Analyze your results. Make a conclusion. Oh! It's out of gas!
> Ah! Now it starts!
>
>
Jc:  Nowadays its ask.com and yahoo.answers.  Has networked intelligence
replaced direct experience?  Another fascinating question.

But for sure, in your example, the scienitific method is a lot less useful
than experience.  When you've had a motorcycle a long time and you drive it
everyday, you remember if it's out of gas or on reserve.  But testing each
hypothesis in an orderly manner is better done in an intuitive way than a
precisely predetermined manner.



> >
> >
> >
> >> > 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?
> >
> > Jc:  I think we need to examine where this betterness lies - a manual,
> > the betterness is functional and in a novel its imaginative.  That's
> > really two distinct spheres of human endeavor.  Or differing abilities
> > of human intellect. Unless you happen to be RMP!  The rest of us have
> > to specialize.
>
> Dan:
> Well, I have read poor instruction manuals and I have read good
> instruction manuals and there is a difference. Often the difference is
> not something I can define outright but it's there nonetheless. It is
> the same with novels.
>
>

Jc:  It's as simple as, good instruction manuals help me solve my problem,
bad ones don't.



> >
> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> > Jc:  The self might be only a pattern, but it's a pattern primary to
> > philosophizing.  I don't see how viewing things in a S/O framework is
> > unwise or bad in any way.  It's the reification that's the problem,
> > not the conceptualization.
>
> Dan:
> We limit our perspective by viewing the world in terms of subjects and
> objects. I wouldn't say that is bad so much as it is a low quality
> endeavor, especially if we know of something better and more
> expansive. It's sort of like sending your kids to a crappy college
> when the best ones don't cost any more.
>
>

Jc:  Hm..  This might work for you, I can't say.  But for me there is a
usefulness to a conscious personal framework.  I won't say it's the only
way to do it, but it sure works best for me.  And I can't help but note
that it seems to be absolutely necessary for philosophical dialogue, so
it's the water in which we swim, at least in this forum.




> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > 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: Exactly.  Completely agree.  And part of that rearranging is
> > delineating ideas that I've chosen from those ideas forced upon me by
> > circumstance.  Sam Harris would have it that there is no difference
> > between those, but I disagree.
>
> Dan:
> I suspect you are talking about social patterns of quality vs
> intellectual patterns... right?
>
>
Jc:  No, I was talking about a Sam Harris video I'd just watched negating
free will.  And I'm sure he'd negate fundamental value, also, since free
will is intimately bound up with values.  You can't have Quality if you've
got no choice and you can't have choice unless there is a betterness to
strive for.


>> Dan:
> >> Who is perceiving that reality and is it objective? Can anyone perceive
> it?
> >>
> >
> > Jc:  From the reality of the self to the reality of reality, we're
> > covering all the bases, Dan!
> >
> > Now that you pin me down, I mean by "Perceived reality", a precise
> > philosophical term - possible experience.
>
> Dan:
> The reason I ask is: if we begin to talk about the reality of reality,
> we fall into the trap of objectivity. Perceived reality is better in
> that it takes into account our own static filters that limit
> perception. The thing is, not everyone perceives 'reality' the same
> way.
>
>
Jc:  Possible experience is different for each individual and yet there is
something to the commonality we share - that is, the question of what is
real, comes down to  a socially constructed agreement.    This is partly
why I believe the 3rd and 4th are infinitely intertwined.

>>
>> 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:  What the Greeks listened to was pneuma, which your standard new
> testament calls "spirit" and I'd say equates nicely to the MoQ's DQ.
> So yes, it all fits.

Dan:
> I disagree. Dynamic Quality has nothing to do with spirit. Pneuma
> means breath in ancient Greek. Think: pneumatic tools. Only in a
> religious context does it take on the meaning of spirit.
>
>
Jc:  We are not constrained by religious dogma, but neither are constrained
from using religious symbology in creating metaphysics.  Who was it that
latched onto an old hymn?  "You got to cross, that lonesome valley".

Dan:


> Now, unless you happen to read ancient Greek, the bible you've read
> was most likely the King James version written in the 1600s by a group
> of 47 scholars who were all members of the Church of England. Not
> exactly an unbiased opinion, that.
>
>
Jc:  There has been more than a little bit of scholarship on that book and
its origins, I know.  But I'm not really talking about some kind of
fundamentalist dogma.  I'm talking about the meaning of Spirit which is the
individual's apprehension of what is good and what is not good.



> >JC:
> > But then, if you say, intellect is blocking us from DQ, how are you
> > going to keep from getting lumped in with anti-intellectuals?  You
> > gotta admit, that's a toughie.
>
> Dan:
> Well, again, intellect comes later. I am not saying intellect blocks
> Dynamic Quality. In fact, intellect opens our mind to the potentiality
> of something new and unexpected. But then we have to let it go in
> order to make that possibility a reality.


Jc:  Ok, but sometimes its much harder to let go when your ego is so
heavily invested.  Intellectuals, being by definition smarter (or at least
more "smartness oritented") can have a big problem with that.  I mentioned
my extremely intellectual friend Chris, who was suicidal until he took LSD;
being highly intellectual is the most difficult static trap there is.  If
you're caught in a social bind, you can intellectualize yourself out of it
but if you're in an intellectual bind, no static pattern is any good to you.

Dan:


> Look at it like this: there are times when I'm in a quandary as far as
> the story I'm writing goes. There are holes in the plot...  things
> don't add up the way I want... and no matter how many ideas I throw at
> the problem, I can't seem to solve it.
>
> So I go to my day job and start doing some mindless work like scraping
> and painting a hydraulic lift that looks to be a thousand years old.
> All of a sudden: BOOM! Out of the blue, the answer appears to me full
> blown and perfect for solving the problem I've exhausted my every
> resource on.
>
> I've intellectually steeped myself in the problem and then forgotten
> all about it. I don't know why it works--oh, I know you could say it's
> the subconscious mind doing its thing but you and I both know that's
> bunk--I only know it does.
>
> Is that anti-intellectual? I don't think so.
>
>
Jc:  It's meta-intellectual.  :)


>
> >
> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Jc:  No, I'm seperating here the ideas about the future, which are
> > formed of static knowlede, etc, from the actual future that is coming,
> > but nobody knows what it is.  That future, is certainly not connected
> > to direct experience.
>
> Dan:
> Do you really think there is an actual future?
>

Jc:  I have an intuitiion there is.  We'll have to wait and see.

Hey, here it comes!

Oops, there it goes.

That's ok, the future is like a city bus,
 if you miss this one, there'll be another along in a few moments.

>> 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.
>
> Jc:  Oh my yes, you laid your finger on a the pulse of a major issue
> right there.
>       The way scientific knowledge gets dumbed down for the use of
> politicians or the masses is a big problem.

Dan:

> We write up or down to our audience. That scientific knowledge is
> being dumbed down should tell you something about the masses it is
> being written for.
>
>
Jc:  What?  The masses are getting stupid?  Absolutely.  Now you see my
fear for the future.


>> Dan:
>> Platt? Is that you?
>>
>
> Jc:  Funny.  Good ole Platt, may he R.I.P.

Dan:
> Wait a minute... did Platt pass away?
>
>
Jc:  Yup.  His wife Judy wrote and told us over at LS.





> JC:
> > but I'm saying of course,
> > Randian self-interest magnified by technologically-multiplied effects
> > = Chaotic devastation eventually.
>
> Dan:
> I know it's easy to believe that we are all only interested in how big
> a piece of the pie we can grab for ourselves but I think that is a
> dangerous fantasy rooted more in a convenient fiction than in everyday
> experience.
>
>
Jc:  It's the root operating system of our governmental laws and corporate
rules.  I think as a result of a lack of metaphysical value - SOM evolves
into subjective values of coveting objects, eventually.  Its also what
drives fundamentalist extremism.  When you squelch the reality of value,
religious values become hardened and reactionary

> >
> > Dan:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Jc:  No, it could be a complete mess.  There's no guarantee that our
> > long climb upward in material comfort and technological will keep
> > going forever and there are many signs of system failure.   Maybe some
> > miraculous cure could come.  Maybe Jesus in the clouds will appear.
> > Who knows?
>
> Dan:
> I'm pretty sure I saw Chuy driving past the dealership in a souped up
> low riding mother of pearl '57 Chevy but it might have been his
> brother Jim. Either way, I'm pretty sure we're on our own.
>
> I read reports from a hundred and fifty years ago or thereabouts how
> New York City would be buried beneath a mile of horse manure in only a
> few decades. Huh. Bummer, that. Imagine the smell. Especially during
> summertime. Then the darnedest thing happened... some fool invented
> the combustion engine.
>
>
Jc:  Which is merely spewing the carbon wastes into the skies, instead of
the streets!  But I can see you're an optimist Dan, A sometimes gloomy
optimists whereas I'm a usually cheerful pessimist.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
And I feel fine.

Later Pard,

Jo