[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[Paul Turner]

Mati,

>Paul on 12/19 wrote, "I think intellectual value patterns can be discerned
>as those constructed by consciously following rules of valid inference."  I
>respectfully take issue with this approach on two points. (Paul I am not
>trying to nitpick on this or be a wise guy or acting stupid) First, why
>"consciously following" the rules.

Paul:  Perhaps 'deliberately' is a better term?  The point being that
although you may find examples of inference occurring prior to my suggested
historical emergence of this skill I would argue that it wasn't a deliberate
and systematic activity until the generalised rules of inference had been
established in such a manner that they could be taught and practised.
 
>Who is conscious and what does that have
>to do with intellect?

Paul:  The static self is conscious.  See above for clarification of what it
has to do with intellect.

>Secondly, how are the rules of valid inference
>determined to be valid or real?

Paul:  The same way that anything evolving is "determined to be valid" i.e.,
the most successful patterns dominate and the most successful patterns are
those that have the most quality.

>I compare it with Pirsig's letter to Paul in which he defined intellect by
>saying, "Intellect" can then be defined very loosely as the level of
>independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can be
>described as the rules of this sign manipulation."  I seriously appreciate
>Pirsig's contribution to advancing our understanding his perspective on the
>topic intellect, but can't understand how this definition allows us to
>discern deeper intellectual and social values such as are found in
>democracy
>or human rights.

Paul:  As I said to Bo recently, that's because symbol manipulation is the
enabling mechanism of intellectual evolution but its generic value is truth
and it is concepts of truth which clash with social values of authority and
status etc.  Rationality is a skill which, in principle, can justify your
beliefs regardless of who you are, how much money you earn, what colour your
skin is etc.

>I appreciate Paul approach as being somewhat "tighter" than Pirsig's
>definition, but both I believe fall short in our understanding of
>intellect.

Paul:  Fair enough.  As I said before, take it or leave it, it works fine
for me.

>(Or perhaps I fall short in humbly understanding these definitions ;-)) And
>here is what I am specifically driving at.  I think we can agree that
>Aristotle's S/O split is a (I am stressing at this point(a) verses (thee))
>basis for an intellectual value.

Paul:  Your phrase "an intellectual value" seems a little odd when it is
patterns of values that constitute a level, but yes, I agree that
Aristotle's metaphysics was intellectual.

>a) Can either definition or approach to determine if the S/O, SOM, or SOL
>is
>an intellectual value?
>b) If so how?

Paul:  Yes, because they all revolve around the correspondence theory of
truth and truth is the defining value of intellect.  

Regards

Paul