[MD] Julian Baggini Interview with Pirsig

[skutvik at online.no]

Scott.

18 jan. you wrote:

> This is arguing against me as Scott, and not as the D.A. that I am
> trying to impersonate. As such, I don't care what you mean be
> intellect or intelligence. All I care about is why you say there is
> value at the inorganic level.

I have better things to do than argue with several Scotts, if you ...

> > happen to agree that value, aka consciousness, aka intellect is
> > omnipresent, but I am under no illusion that I can make this
> > self-evident to the skeptic.)

.. than it's up to you to sort it out. The fallacy is of the course the 
"value=consciousness, aka intellect" part, but I am obviously not 
able to make that self-evident to you.

This last shows it:   

> Scott as D.A.
> Huh? Are you saying that rocks sit around and groove on their
> infallible knowledge?

I put knowledge in quotation marks to suspend the usual usage. 
The idea is that all level patterns are (subject to) that level's 
values. This is a postulate and can't be proved, it's the result from 
such an initial statement which is the proof. Physics' (intellect's) 
"explanation" of how the universe works can also be "huhed" if 
presented as metaphysics (how things really are) but if physics is 
seen as a static intellectual pattern its explanation is good 
enough.

Bo