[MD] For Peter

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham,

 
> 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. 

"Problematic" is very kind considering this articulates the faith of 
science while at the same time demeaning faith.

> 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.) 

One can argue that all levels are in "process." Those cute atoms are always 
in motion. But what we see is fixed. Likewise, this post, a result of 
intellection, is fixed -- maybe for eons. :-)  I think Pirsig's 
intellectual level encompasses both intellectual processes and fixed 
results.    

> 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?

I doubt the existence of a collective intellect. It would be like saying 
there is a collective fingerprint. If "mythos" means some people share 
harmonious ideas and ideals, I'M OK with that. 

Thanks and best to you,
Platt