[MD] Patterns

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --



> I don't think "intellect" has anything to do with "individuals"
> or "societies" other than it is what emerges out of the social
> dialogue of individuals. This is what Pirsig refers to when he
> points out that intellect is always socially mediated, that it
> has been a "myth of independence" that says the "world of
> objects imposes itself upon the mind" free from social mediation.
>
> "what a mind thinks is... dominated by social patterns" and
> the critical observation that "our intellectual description of
> nature is always culturally derived".
>
> ...one has to recall that for Pirsig this "collection" and
> "manipulation" is socially-mediated.  It derives from
> the social level.

May I remind you that "mediation" does not mean "derivation".  It means 
"intervention between conflicting parties or agents".  "Derive", on the 
other hand, means "to take or receive from a specified source."  The source 
of intellect is not "social dialogue".  It is "what a mind thinks".

> But intellection requires FIRST the individual to have
> assimilated what Pirsig refers to as "the collective
> consciousness".

With all due respect, Arlo, your persistent crusade on behalf of a 
"collective consciousness"  is not only epistemologically unsound, it 
hinders the acceptance of Pirsig's philosophy.

Regards,
Ham