[MD] Consciousness

[Platt Holden]

Hi Mel:

> PLATT:
> <snip>
> If the levels can be identified by the reactions of their experiencing
> participants as Pirsig suggests in that answer, then the levels might be
> better named as follows:
> 
> Inanimate    (Inorganic)
> Instinctual   (Biological)
> Institutional (Social)
> Individual     (Intellectual)
> Ineffable      (Aesthetic)
> 
> These names have a several of advantages. 1)The basic static nature of
> the
> lower levels as being static (objective) is made clear. 2) The social
> level
> is clearly identified as human (as Pirsig insists). 3) The importance of
> the arts in putting us in touch with DQ is highlighted ("Beauty leads
> the
> way forward" -- Gelernter)
> <snip>
> 
> mel:
> I don't find a name change an improvement.
> Also, I don't see aesthetic as a higher/different
> level--I find it firmly part of the tool set in intellect.

What are the "tool sets" of intellect besides science and reason?
Does one need to understand the physiology of the eardrum or how sound 
travels through the air in order to lose one's separate self sense in 
listening to Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto? That's the sort of 
experience I was driving at. 

Thanks, Platt


"It's strange that people don't recognize the enormous decline in taste 
melody, rhythm, harmony and invention since the days of Elvis, Chuck Berry 
and The Beatles." -- Roger Scruton, The Independent, 24/01/01