[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt (Bo mentioned) --

I was making a statement about what Intellect really is, based upon my own 
intellectual understanding.  The point I was trying to make is that while 
ideas and principles may be published and retrieved for use by others, the 
intellect that formulates them does not exist independently of their author. 
You called my statement "a fine example of an intellectual pattern."

Since, apparently, any formulated idea or concept is a "pattern" to the 
MoQer, I'll revise my conclusion thusly:  "Absent human cognizance and THERE 
IS NO PATTERN."  If you agree with this premise, then we have no quarrel 
because we're not talking about an Intellect that exists apart from the 
individual.  (I suspect that Bo may disagree, however.)

I also said:
> Only the rational creature has the arrogance to place Intellect on a
> high pedestal and deify it as Cosmic Truth, if not Reality itself.

[Platt]:
> I don't think it's arrogant to suggest that this post is real.  As for the
> MOQ, it says intellectual patterns are but one aspect of Reality itself -- 
> not the whole deal by a long shot, but morally superior to patterns of
> swamp grass.

Reality itself doesn't have aspects.  An aspect is a "differentiation" that 
appears only in existence, or what you folks call SOM.  As to the moral 
superiority of an intellectual concept compared to a "pattern of swamp 
grass", I'll leave that for the moralists to decide.

[Platt]:
> I don't see where Pirsig posits "human reason as the ultimate measure of
> understanding."  It has value to be sure, as you demonstrate in this post.
> But like me, Pirsig is big on aesthetic understanding which can't be 
> explained.

You've also said (to Marsha) that intellect has no role in determining what 
is good.  I can't agree with that assertion, since I believe morality itself 
is an intellectual construct.  Remember Protagoras?  Man is the measure of 
all things; his measure of what is good is what we call Morality. 
Incidentally, I'm big on aesthetic understanding, too.  To me, an aesthetic 
experience beats Pirsig's "sitting on a hot stove" analogy by a long shot. 
The exhilaration we feel on hearing a favorite piece of music or seeing a 
spectacular rock formation is a closer approximation of pure sensual 
experience.  Our innate affinity for "rapturous experience" is evidence of 
our psycho-emotional nature.  And while the pain we feel when sitting on a 
hot stove is also "pre-intellectual", it is more properly defined as a 
physiological response than value sensibility.

 [Platt]:
> I don't see where Bo or I "dehumanize" anything.  Seeing a logical fault
> is a human ability. Creating intellectual patterns is a human ability.

As I understand the MOQ hierarchy, Intellect is posited as a higher level of 
Quality than the individual that exists independently of man.  If I am 
interpreting this theory correctly, it would make Intellect a non-human 
phenomenon, except, of course, when the individual participates in it.  In 
my view, to regard the intellect as anything but human is to "dehumanize" 
it.

[Ham, previously]:
> So why can't you see that the intellectual object of your
> consciousness is no more real than you are?  What you observe
> as Reality is not you or Essence but the "pattern" that you
> construct from Value.  Or, as Bo has astutely expressed it,
> "the VALUE of the S/O distinction".

[Platt]:
> So I am not real, Bo is not real, you are not real and this post is not
> real? Or is that only value patterns are real? If the latter, then 
> consider
> me, Bo, yourself and this post all value patterns. That's OK by me.

Sarcasm doesn't become you, Platt, and there's really no need for it.  I 
used the term "no more real", implying that anything relative is a reduction 
of absolute Reality (cap "R") which for me is Essence.  Thus, you and Bo and 
I are subjective "existents" whose "apparent reality" is contingent upon 
objective (i.e., existential) being.  Our posts are "patterns" of this being 
which, in turn, are our "constructs" of value.  In my philosophy Value is 
primary in existence, just as it is in the MOQ.  Experience is the 
intellectual process of objectivizing value into the things and events that 
constitute our existential reality.

Thanksgiving is another such intellectual construct, but enjoy yours anyway.

Regards,
Ham