[MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual

[Ham Priday]

[Chris]:

I'D LIKE ALL OF YOUR TAKES ON THIS. Please.

> If the intellectual level is the quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake
> alone - Can this quest come to be without a distinct *I* to perform and
> be the vessel of that quest?

I respond reluctantly, Chris, only because you've solicited ALL opinions, 
not because I believe the so-called "intellectual level" is anything but a 
metaphor to circumvent the self.  It will come as no surprise that my 
epistemology is quite different from that of the MoQ.

The individual "I" is the agent that constructs existential reality from its 
value-sensibility.  The objects of experience represent the values 
differentiated by the neuro-sensory (psycho-organic) system.  This is the 
first tier of "cognizant experience".  It creates a series of disparate 
images or impressions, (i.e., sounds, colors, shapes, textures, smells, 
tastes) that are organized by the brain into the cogent whole that we call 
our "reality".  This is the process of intellection, part of which is 
extracting knowledge from the experienced reality.  No part of this process 
can occur without the "I" which is the cognizant subject or locus of 
existence.

Putting this into a simple paradigm, the differentiation of value creates 
sense impressions.  These impressions are converted to physical phenomena. 
>From the phenomena the intellect discerns relational properties that 
constitute knowledge.  Thus, acquiring knowledge "for knowledge's sake" is 
the last and least proximate source of metaphysical truth.  Value- 
sensibility (or what Pirsig wrongly calls "pre-intellectual experience") is 
not only "the cutting edge of reality", it is reality's CREATOR.  Yet, you 
and Bodvar continue to exalt Intellect as the highest and most advanced 
level of experience.

As a non-heirarchist, I'll only quote without comment some of your 
suppositions.  They include ...

> the intellectual level ... evolved as a part of the social level,
> when this social level had evolved high enough.
>
> the social level had to evolve to such a degree that it
> produced the basis for the idea of a distinct and separate *I*
>
> when social structures become so evolved that distinct and
> separate *I's* are created that provides the vessel for the
> intellectual level?

... and the most ludicrous of all:
> abolishing the capitalist system so that social values such as
> profit isn't allowed to subjugate humanity's strive towards knowledge.

For the life of me, I can't fathom how the rewards of research, production, 
and marketing
in the capitalist system subjugate humanity's quest for knowledge.  Aside 
from the fact that this is a disingenuous assertion, how would Marxism--even 
ideally implemented--increase man's acquisition of knowledge??

Regards,
Ham