[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[skutvik at online.no]

Mati, Paul .... and Mike (I constantly hope for more valid stuff 
from you) 

On 21 Dec. Mati Palm-Leis wrote:

> I have been slowly digesting the comments of Paul and Bo,(Also DMB,
> and Mike). It is musing how quickly there is polarization on the issue
> of intellect; it is enough to make my head spin. ;-)  
 
But before un-spinning Mati's head I must relate an epiphany that 
struck. Paul had confronted me with the consequences of the 
SOL (as he understands it).

> 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. 

Slowly it dawned on me that Paul thinks that "matter" (of the 
mind/matter divide) can be freely exchanged with "inorganic 
quality" and consequently SOL's "O" part becomes "intellectual 
quality". And now the epiphany hit. A year ago I received a letter 
from Pirsig after having asked him about ZMM's "Romantic/ 
Classic" MOQ, where the latter is subtitled "intellect" and splits 
into mind/matter (SOL loud and clear). He wrote;

    "Within the static patterns of the MOQ, matter is the 
    inorganic level and not part of the intellectual level ..."

Now I see that he harbours the same notion of SOM and the 
MOQ being interchangeable: Matter=inorganic value and mind= 
intellectual value.  How Pirsig managed to ignore the integral 'S' 
part?  I guess that looked OK ,intellect is "subjective", Paul may 
answer that.       

                              -------------------

Back to Mati.

> I will try to approach this from a slightly different angle. 
 
> 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. Who is
> conscious and what does that have to do with intellect? Secondly, how
> are the rules of valid inference determined to be valid or real? 

> 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. 

Exactly! One doesn't find any conflict between symbol 
manipulations and social value. Its just a definition of language. 

> I appreciate Paul approach as being somewhat "tighter" than Pirsig's
> definition, but both I believe fall short in our understanding of
> intellect. (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. 
 
Yes, with Aristotle "...  our modern scientific understanding of 
reality was born" (ZMM p.374). Ari represents a most significant 
stage of intellect, but according to ZMM it had been brewing for a 
long time. The initial search for principles transcending the 
mythological reality was its first and it began at least 200 years 
before. But with Aristotle one can see the outline of modernity as 
we know it.  

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

This became a bit difficult. "Either definition"? Pirsig's, Paul's or 
...? 

Anyway, a most rewarding Christmas celebration to you all. 

Bodvar