[MD] For Peter

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham,

> [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.

All rational interpretations are based on unprovable assumptions. For 
example, science which certainly claims to be rational, assumes that only 
those propositions that can be empirically verified are true, a proposition 
that itself cannot be empirically verified. Faith is belief in something 
which cannot be proved.
 
> 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.

Check his post of Aug. 17 with the subject, "What is SOM?"

> > 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 think a "mode of consciousness" can be justifiably placed in an "idee 
fixe" of a hierarchy -- and a value hierarchy works for me. No need to go 
into all the reasons why. It's explained in "Lila."

> > 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.

Pirsig's intellectual level isn't solely a level of "conscious awareness." 
Pirsig describes it as the evolutionary stage where life forms gained the 
capacity to manipulate symbols representing experience. But, this has been 
so much argued about before on this site that there's no point in going 
into it all again. Some buy his description, others don't.    

> 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?

Well, yes and no. I think there's a reason for being self-aware, namely 
that being so is better than not being so. But, of course, I can't prove 
it. :-)

Always a pleasure, Ham.
Platt