[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Laramie --

[Laird]:
> I'm insisting 'things' don't exist until we create them
> (exclusively within intellect) through an S/O distinction.
> Prior to that we have static patterns of values which
> for our convenience we place into levels, but even that
> is after-the-fact within intellect.

[Mark]:
> Skutvik's ideas show a man who has an imagination
> and he can't be knocked for that.  But the SOLAQI
> has a basic flaw Skutvik did not wish to  contemplate.
>
 > Skutvik's assertion is: The subject/object distinction is
> fundamental to intellectual patterns. It is very important
> to keep this central to one's analysis of Skutvik's position.

[Larz]:
> Reading this thread has led me to an exploration of
> the SOLAQI hypothesis.  IMO, Skutvik was on the
> right track.  This is an area of interest to me as well,
> so I'm glad to see this angle being pursued.
>
> Perhaps the lion has an ~unreflective~ s/o intellect,
> while ~conscious~ s/o/I distinguishes the Intellectual level.

Most certainly Slutvik was on the right track.  But, unfortunately, the
ontology demanded by the MoQ makes his premise unworkable in a
patterns/level context.

Not to shoot a dead horse (lion?) by bringing up old history, but I was "on
duty" here when Bo Slutvick raised the ugly truth about the MoQ's failure to
recognize intellect as unique to the human being.  Actually, I may have
triggered (re-instigated?) Bo's argument back in August of  2005 with these
leading  questions:

[Ham, on 8/28/05]:
> Isn't it "rationality" rather than "imagination" which
> constructs physical reality externally to the self?

[Bo]:
> It was this that made me jump. Yes, you bet it's rationality
> that creates the subject/object distinction. WHICH IS IT!!
> It has umpteen derivations: Mind/matter, consciousness/the
> world, mental/material, abstract/concrete ...even unfamiliar
> forms like culture/nature. On and on this duality goes and my
> theory says that this is MOQ's intellectual level.

[Ham, continues]:
> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "the distinction between
> 'out there' and 'in here' is not a fundamental unquestionable
> reality." Are you saying that the distinction itself is not
> unquestionable, or do you mean to suggest that such a
> divided reality is questionable? Could you kindly clarify that
> assertion for me?

[Bo replies]:
> Here it gets a bit difficult with double negations. Anyway,
> the subject/object distinction is of course the premise of
> SOM and even if science and "every schoolchild knows"
> that the "in here/out there" (or mind/matter) is impossible,
> it doesn't help it is its SOM's dogma. I could go on here
> but ..enough.
>
> Now, along comes the MOQ and says that SOM is invalid,
> the fundamental split is the Dynamic/Static one, thus taking
> over the metaphysical "M", leaving the bare S/O skeleton.
> Then the big question arises: Where in the MOQ static
> hierarchy does the S/O belong? And my claim is that the
> MOQ absorbs it by making it its own intellectual level....
>
> After this to ask - from MOQ premises - if this distinction is
> questionable is impossible, it is a static value level and just as
> questionable as any other static value. Paul's "imagination"
> stems from him subscribing to the impossible way of absorbing
> the S/O that makes inorganic and biological values subjective
> (out there) while social and intellectual values are subjective
> (in here).
>
> I don't know if you have followed me or are interested, but
> - as I said - I have never met anyone except myself forwarding
> the view that the subject/object distinction being rationality.
> My assertion that rationality is "intellect" ...wonder what you
> say to that?  By the way, I have just submitted an essay to the
> moq.org "forum" called "A SOL update", keep an eye open
> for that.

[Ham]:
> I suspect that all three of you [Bo, Mark, Paul] are conceptually
> more in tune with me than the majority of the MD participants.
> You are all arguing for proper recognition of individual awareness
> (consciousness or intellect) in the Pirsig ontology, but your
> appeals are tangled in the language of SQ/DQ in which you've
> all been indoctrinated.  And that's the real stumbing block
> in our dialogue.

Bo Slutvik and Paul Turner are no longer with us, but Mark's recent synopsis
of Bo's position brings the Achilles heel of MoQ back into focus:

[Mark]:
> Skutvik's assertion is: The subject/object distinction is
> fundamental to intellectual patterns.

Indeed, the subject/object division is fundamental to ALL intellectual
patterns!
A pattern is a differentiation -- a unique configuration intuitively
perceived and presented as a model for intellectual understanding.  There
are no patterns or differentiations implied or actualized in the primary
source, whether you call it DQ or Essence.  Hence, all patterns -- all
rationalized DIFFERENCES -- are a product of the proprietary intellect.

To put it bluntly: There is no "Intellectual Level".  By insisting that the
source of reality is fundamentally broken down into discrete "levels of
quality" the Pirsigians continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

Thanks, Laramie, and Happy New Year!

Ham