[MD] MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality

[Michael Hamilton]

Hi Ian, Bo,

> > > > [Bo] Again, ZMM sees the early search for principles beyond the
> > > > myths as the embryonic S/O. The principles "objective" and the
> > > > old myths just "subjective". When will this sink in?
>
> [IG] to be worth sinking in, it would have to have some truth value.

And how do you go about to discerning its truth value? Hold that thought...

<snip>

> > > >     "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between
> > > >     intellect and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by
> > > >     embedding all of them in a larger system of understanding.
> > > >     Objects are inorganic and biological values; subjects are social
> > > >     and intellectual values.  They are not two mysterious universes
> > > >     that go floating around in some subject-object dream that allows
> > > >     them no real contact with one another.  They have a
> > > >     matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship." [LILA, p344]
>
> [IG] This is much quoted on MD. I think in the middle sentence it
> should be read more carefully. He is referring to GOF subjects and
> objects to make a point, not extolling or commending them to us. More
> like "GOF SOMism would see Objects as what MoQ calls inorganic /
> biological values. GOF SOMism would see Subjects as what MoQ calls
> social / intellectual values" The only significance of subjects and
> objects is their evolutionary relationship.

[Mike] So long as it is taken with a large pinch of salt, I have no
problem with that Pirsig quote. The problems come when it is taken to
mean that the MOQ still holds that inorganic and biological patterns
are really "out there", while social and intellectual patterns are
really "in here". I know that you, and most on the MD, have a large
supply of salt at your disposal and use it judiciously, but it is
vital to see the danger of retaining the out there/in here distinction
as something fundamental. It must be guarded against. I think we both
agree that "in here" and "out there" are creations of the intellect,
not something fundamental to all SQ. You might be suprised to learn
that I also agree that the intellect does not always divide into "in
here" and "out there" (S/O[Descartes], hereafter known as S/O[D], a
source of much misunderstanding). But I do believe that the intellect
always divides into "me", the doubter, and "it", the pattern of SQ
that is subject to doubt.

(Here I go again throwing mud at the already filthy wall of
intellect-definition.)

Intellect is the means by which the individual discerns the value of
propositions. I'm willing to speculate that intellect was born when
the first lie was uttered by a human being. Once social patterns for
sharing meaning evolve to the point where propositions can be formed,
the possibility of lying arises. And that is when it becomes necessary
to evolve a new value level for discriminating between propositions.
Gradually, doubt spreads: the Israelites become the first society to
systematically doubt and reject the idols and totems worshipped by
every other society; Greeks such as Parmenides, Zeno and Heracleitus
begin to question the reality of permanence and change, and the myths.

Hence the obsession of the more turgid Western philosophers with
"sense deception", not realising that the senses never decieve - it is
the interpretation that can be erroneous. For example, Descartes'
senses do not lie when he sees a stick half-submerged in water. Data
are data. It his his unspoken linguistic interpretation: "the stick is
bent", that deceives him, and it is this PROPOSITION that he doubts.

> [IG] Come down out of the trees
> guys, the enlightenment's lovely. Some of our intellects have evolved
> and left subjects and objects behind, where they belong. A pattern
> fossilised in the intellect of earlier generations, somewhere low down
> in the 4th layer.

[Mike] I doubt that any of us can call ourselves enlightened, and
especially not when we are walking around dividing the world into
subjects and objects while claiming that our intellects have left
subjects and objects behind, without realising how impossible that is.
We can only leave subjects and objects behind by suspending disbelief
and engaging in the creative dance of Quality, guided only by a vague
sense of we know not what. If anyone can offer a pithier and more
poetic version of that clumsy last sentence, I'd greatly appreciate
it!

> > > > [Bo] The impossible thing about this way of "encasing" the SOM inside the
> > > > MOQ is that it sounds as if SOM still is valid: that societies are
> > > > in our minds and that biology is "out there". This is out of tune
> > > > with the MOQ that has declare the SOM nil an void.  and consequently
> > > > can have no relevance to its own levels this way.

<snip>

> > [Bo] I regret if it
> > sounds disloyal to object to Pirsig's utterings, but I can't help
> > criticize what grates my Q-nerve. The said "encasement" is no
> > mere uttering, but part of the canon and it was only after it
> > appeared in the "Subjects, Objects ..." paper that its dubious
> > nature dawned on me. I excused it as Pirsig accommodating to a
> > somish audience, but he denied that in "Lila's Child" .... alas.

[Mike] I wasn't aware that the faulty encasement of the S/O[D] was
generally accepted in the fundamental sense. If it is so, I understand
your sustained vehemence and Crusading attitude more than ever, Bo.

Regards,
Mike