[MD] French ingredient in the soup of sentiments

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

>  [Platt previously]:
> > I've always claimed that the intellect is individual,
> > not social, and have even advocated changing Pirsig's
> > intellectual level to the "individual level."
> 
> [SA]:
> > Yes,  it is a positive step.
> 
> [Platt]:
> > You are the first to agree with my proposal.
> > Welcome aboard!

[Ham] 
> Platt, my friend, I may not quality as an MoQ acolyte, but you must know
> that I have always challenged the notion that Intellect is something apart
> from the individual.  So far as I am aware, unless you include Donald
> Hoffman's assertion that "consciousness and its contents are all that
> exists," Robert Pirsig is the only non-theistic philosopher who has
> postulated an extracorporeal intellect.

I don't think Pirsig has postulated an "extracorporeal intellect." He has 
postulated, like you, an extracorporeal creative power (his "DQ," your 
"Essence.") that cannot be defined as intellect or anything else. Either 
that or I don't understand DQ or Essence or Intellect. That said, I think 
we agree that intellect and the individual cannot be pulled apart, split 
or otherwise separated. "Mind" however is a different kettle of fish. I 
don't think of "mind" and "intellect" as synonyms. To me, "Mind" is the 
same as your "Essence" (as I understand it). 

[Ham]
> Since having an intellect presupposes having consciousness, I attribute
> both of these functions to individual awareness.  However, I do reserve the
> term "Sensibility" in its absolute sense for Essence.  I think we have to
> make a distinction between what is sensed (or made-aware) by an organism
> from what constitutes the primary source.  And, since we can't define the
> latter, except as the Not-other, it is my theory that Essence encompasses
> absolute Sensibility, however that integration may be conceived in human
> terms.

Well, we are getting bogged down here in vocabulary. Your "sensibility" is 
"Mind" to me, and I consider awareness to be part of "Mind."  

[Ham]
> Therefore, if Pirsig regards DQ as the primary source (which has never been
> made clear to me), he would have to decide whether Quality is "sensible".
> Perhaps he has already circumvented this question by using Intellect in
> place of Sensibility.  If so, he would be taking on traditional metaphysics
> and the positivists alike, not to mention common understanding of what
> these words mean.

Seems you, me, Pirsig and perhaps others have a different understanding of 
"common understanding."

[Ham]
> But, yes, you have my full support in arguing for an "individual level" --
> or "individual self", which is even better.  For me, existence is the
> "individualization" of Essence from the infinitesimal perspective of an
> other (the self).  In order to have this perspective, conscious awareness
> is actualized as a subject whose existence is its object.  (I know that SOM
> duality is abhored by the MoQers, but there is no escaping it in the
> experienced world.)

You lost me.

[Ham]
> After voicing my agreement on this issue, I note that you and SA then
> proceed to contradict it.
> 
> SA says:
> > Yet, I would add what the individual intellectualizes
> > is not necessarily only in the mind of the individual.
> 
> Platt responds:
> > If I read you right, you agree with Scott and me that
> > mind is not confined to man's brain. Rather, the brain
> > accesses mind that is infused in all things and exists
> > everywhere at once.

[Ham] 
> So we're back to the notion of a collective mind, which might as well be
> Pirsig's Intellect, and once again I have to ask why you're bothering to
> push for intellect as individual.

To me "collective mind" means everybody agreeing on certain truths or 
courses of action. The "Mind" I talk about transcends everybody.

[Ham]
> SA then tries to justify intellect as a "mirror of life" (which Platt
> prefers to call "mirror of the heavens") with a DQ influx of "becoming":
> 
> > I say become, due to the influx of DQ that would take
> > intellect into a much fuller realization of the overall quality
> > that is.  This DQ influx I have argued stabilizes intellect
> > in a quality world that is not only human fashioned,
> > but is non-human thought, too.  Thereby we realize in
> > a quality world, a world that is not just a human view,
> > but a world that includes participation of stars, squirrels,
> > and all else here.
> 
> Platt injects:
> 
> > Yes, and especially a world that includes the participation
> > of beauty, betterness and perfection.  Pirsig hints at this
> > higher world that you and I agree exists (along with Plato
> > and a few other philosophers not to mention religious
> > scholars) ...

[Ham]
> Come on now, folks.  Isn't this "higher/quality world" you're both waxing
> so poetic about really the Source, Creator, Essence (take your choice) of
> existential reality?

Sure. It's about all that and much more, like DQ, God, the Absolute, 
Brahman, the Void, etc, etc. There are lots of names for "It" in many 
religions and philosophies. I like to think of it simply as the Light 
outside Plato's cave metaphor.

[Ham]
> You can't straddle two realities.  If you exist you
> are an "existent" in awe of Essence as otherness.  Eckhart said: "Take it
> for granted that what you look for with God has no essential value,
> whatever it may be, whether profit, or reward, or spirituality, or
> whatever.  [Using God] you are looking for nothing and that is why you find
> nothing."

Yes, I'm in awe of great beauty, my path to Essence or whatever you want 
to call It. What attracts me to Pirsig is his connecting of Essence to 
Morality. I know you disagree, relegating morality to the narrow, 
restrictive social world of man. But I see no reason why Essence isn't a 
moral force. In fact, if Essence is all inclusive and all creative as you 
say, not to include morality would be a contradiction.

Wonderful to hear from you, Ham.

Best,
Platt