[MD] For Peter

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt [Krimel, Bo, Ron mentioned] --

On 8/26 at 7:51 PM, you responded to my criticism of Pirsig's "weak Dynamic 
forces"
explanation of biological evolution with a question I hadn't spotted 'til 
now.  I also owe an apology to Krimel for not answering his post of the same 
date.

> Do you think Krimel's "spontaneously arising configurations
> of order" is more "sophisticated?"

I haven't been able to locate a Krimel statement with these specific quoted 
references, although "spontaneously arising" is always problematic.  I do 
tend to agree with much of what Krimel has said about intellection. 
(Incidentally, I prefer the 'active' form of this word because I view 
intellect as the process of thinking.)   However, "sophistication" is 
secondary in importance to clarity, and I don't see the necessity for such 
complex analysis of a subjective phenomenon which some here don't even 
acknowledge, much less understand.

When it comes to analysis I continue to be impressed with Ron's logic. 
Consider this exchange under the "Letter to Bovar" heading, for example:

[Bo now]:
> What is a non-cultural definition of INTELLECT? When I (thanks to
> you) read my SOL essay again I'm struck of its quality: This one for
> instance
>
> "What screws it all up is the notion of a mind doing the
>  intellectualization, while it's intellect that does the
>  mind/matter-ization"

[Ron]:
> While you are correct for attributing mind/matter to analytic method,
> you miss the mark in believing that analytic method defines the whole
> phenomena of abstract thought.
> Here is my non-cultural definition of intellect:
> The intellectual level is defined by the social level values it emerges
> from.  I think you'll find Pirsig says something very similar.
>
> Western culture values analytical method and defines intellect using
> its standards.

Of course I find "social level" an inappropriate qualifier, since all 
intellection derives from essential (i.e., pre-intellectual) value, and the 
need to "levelize" Intellect as distinct from Consciousness escapes me. 
That other people's ideas are incorporated in my thoughts does not impugn 
the fact that my conscious intellection is proprietary to me.

Platt, you have previously expressed doubt about the existence of a 
collective intellect, but it is part of the Pirsig "mythos" which has 
undoubtedly made Bo's SOL almost impossible to articulate.  Ron is 
obligingly conforming to the level concept.  May I ask where you currently 
stand on this issue?

Thanks and best regards,
Ham