[MD] For Peter

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --


[Ham, previously]:
> I haven't been able to locate a Krimel statement with these
> specific quote references, although "spontaneously arising"
> is always problematic.

[Platt]:
> "Problematic" is very kind considering this articulates the faith
> of science while at the same time demeaning faith.

I think "faith" is a deprecatory label for the rational interpretation of 
experience.  If we can't accept universal facts and the principles that 
apply to them as the order of our reality, then we're living in a fantasy. 
I have no quarrel with Science as a source of  objective information that 
can provide a useful model of existence.  But I don't base my metaphysics on 
scientific evidence.

Could you point me to Krimel's statement that includes "spontaneously 
arising configurations of order"?  I'd like to review that before offering 
any further comments.

> One can argue that all levels are in "process." Those cute atoms
> are always in motion. But what we see is fixed.  ...
> I think Pirsig's intellectual level encompasses both intellectual
> processes and fixed results.

All existence is process, which means it is experienced as a continuum of 
events in time and space.  Cognizant awareness of this experience as an 
'idée fixe' is a construction of the intellect.  But it's not a "level"; 
it's the mode of consciousness whereby we organize value-sensibility as an 
objective order or system.  Conscious intellection is the processing of 
experiential (objective) information.  The entire process is the being-aware 
of one's existence.

> 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.

Yes, but does that constitute a "level"?  I think we can talk about a level 
of scientific or intellectual understanding in the collective "social" 
sense, but to establish intellection as a "level of conscious awareness" is 
misleading and specious to me.  As you know, I don't buy into the 
"everything has awareness" theory.  Only sentient beings have awareness, and 
that awareness is proprietary to the sensible organism.  A level of 
intellect floating around in space is inconceivable to me, just as is a 
level of quality or value.  Unrealized value is a malapropism.  Without 
sensible awareness there can be no consciousness and no realization.  Which 
for "theists" like ourselves suggests a reason for the agency of 
individuated selfness.

Do you agree?

Thanks, Platt.
Ham