[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Ham Priday]

Hi again, Bo --

I didn't want to leave the impression that I was mocking your theory. 
Actually, I like the way you think and admire your perspicacity in holding 
out for what you believe is the correct placement of Intellect in the MoQ 
hierarchy.  What frustrates me, however, is what I think should also 
frustrate you; namely, having to assign a hypothetical level to what is 
clearly a subjective human faculty, thereby rendering it a "universal" in 
the abstract platonic sense.  There is nothing more unequivocal in my 
philosophy than the proprietary nature of cognizant awareness.  So, perhaps 
you will understand my aversion to the notion of intelligence, intellection, 
consciousness, or organic sensibility as "universal properties".

When you say, "This mind/brain (S/O) distinction is intellect's VALUE!", you 
ring my chimes, because this is exactly what I've tried to express in my 
thesis.  The problem is that you don't carry this concept through to 
completion.  It comes across as just an axiom without ontological support.

You go on to say:
> The fact that this subject seemingly surveys both the subjective and
> the objective realities is result of ever more turns of the S/O screw.
> It has turned since the Greeks and we may no longer figure out all
> its intricacies. The MOQ is an Ariadne thread that finally can lead
> us out of intellect's S/O labyrinth.

Agreed.  Then lead us out of the labyrinth by explaining the role Value 
plays in reversing or annulling the S/O distinction.  For example, I 
maintain that Value is what connects the subject to its objective reality, 
that by appropriating Value for itself the finite subject incrementally 
dissolves the "self/other", S/O distinction and restores the unity of its 
absolute source, intellectualizing (i.e., experiencing) the differentiated 
world of beingness in the process.  If you comprehend this ontological 
paradigm--even if you can't accept it--I would be most grateful if you could 
put it in the context of your SOL for comparative purposes.  In this way, we 
could perhaps have a constructive dialogue on the cosmological, 
epistemological, and ontological aspects of both philosophies.  I suspect 
that such a discussion might have more than passing interest to the MoQists 
in this forum.

Thanks for your willingness to consider my ideas, Bo.  I would wish you and 
yours a Happy Thanksgiving, except that this holiday has no historical basis 
for celebration in Norway.  So have a pleasant weekend, anyway, and take 
care until the next time we talk.

Essentially yours,
Ham