[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[Paul Turner]

Bo,

>> Mati: I don't know what your premises and conclusions are suggesting
>> and how that will contribute to find a basis to discern intellectual
>> values from other values which is my motivation in all this.
>> "Idealist Assumption"??? I don't know Bo's SOL being any more or less
>> an idealist assumption than Pirsig's MOQ.
>
>Well put Mati. Paul's idealist accusation is most misplaced, if
>anything is idealist it is his own "carbon an intellectual pattern ..."

Paul:  That's not my position.  That was me drawing out the consequences of
your claim that the mind/matter divide and all that constitutes it exists
inextricably and exclusively at the intellectual level.  From this premise
it follows that, if matter is an intellectual pattern, and carbon is matter,
then carbon is an intellectual pattern, no?  Of course, you will deny that
carbon is matter but I argue that this is just an arbitrary mix of
acceptance and rejection.  You give no reason as to why you are happy for
carbon to be classified as inorganic values but not matter.  Do you deny
that carbon can be called an element too?  Furthermore, you say that the
reason/emotion split is a classic intellectual pattern but are happy for
emotion to be classified as social nonetheless.  This is inconsistent at the
very least.  

You have more or less evaded these questions to date and I can only put that
down to your inability to answer them without undermining your argument.
You will probably try to brush these objections off as my overcomplicating
things or my use of an "unholy mix" of "somish" and "moqish" but who has
definitively categorised terms accordingly?  Do you have a listed of
sanctioned moqish terms?  What are your criteria?  You will no doubt say it
is "obvious" and "plain" and all the usual cop-outs but when all the smoke
has cleared I suspect there will be no argument, just an unsupported
restatement of the very position which is in question.

>But the MOQ makes SOM (Aristotle) a static level of its own, and
>is  thus not part of that scheme, but truly a new reality. If we
>relinquish that the MOQ is done for. I still believe this is what
>Pirsig meant by the "you can't avoid metaphysics", that even
>Stone Age humankind could not avoid constructing a world view;
>A 3rd. level metaphysics

Paul:  See my other post for the consequences of your metaphysics = reality
premise.  

Regards

Paul