[MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet II !

[Ham Priday]

Platt, Mati, Bodvar, and All --

I've abstained from commenting on Mati's questions for a number of reasons, 
the most pertinent being that I don't believe in a hierarchical reality. 
For me, Reality and what we experience as a multiplistic, relational world 
are two quite different realms.  Therefore, it would be disengenuous on my 
part to take sides on Bodvar's "Intellectual Level" based on the premises 
cited by Mati on 7/15.  (I haven't been able to confront Bo directly on his 
SOL theory for the same reason, despite my agreement that intellection is an 
S-O phenomenon.)  However, inasmuch as Mati has invited responses from 
"anybody who thinks they ...are able to better define or understand what 
...intellectual values are,"  I've decided to jump in where angels fear to 
tread.

If you've read my posts, you're aware of my belief that intellect is a 
cognizant function of the individual, and morality is a set of behavioral 
mores adopted by a culture to minimize intrapersonal conflict and insure its 
survival.  I was therefore intrigued by Platt's reference to "moral codes 
that Pirsig says are the defining characteristics of the levels."

[Platt]:
> I find it puzzling that in both Arlo's and DMB's answers to Mati's
> questions that there is nary a mention of the moral codes that Pirsig
> says are the defining characteristics of the levels.  It seems both
> have ignored the basic premise of the MOQ that the world -- at
> each and every level -- is a moral order, and that a significant
> problem with today's scientifically dominated S-O intellect is its
> complete moral blindness. ...

As a moral relativist who views the universe as an amoral system, I was 
interested to see how Pirsig supports Platt's contention.  But I was 
disappointed to find the "moral order" described in the LILA quotation 
somewhat incoherent, even by MoQ standards, and more problematic than 
helpful in this context.

> "Morals can't function normally because morals have been declared
> intellectually illegal by the subject-object metaphysics that dominates
> present social thought.  These subject-object patterns were never
> designed for the job of governing society. They're not doing it. When
> they're put in the position of controlling society, of setting moral
> standards and declaring values, and when they then declare that there
> are no values and no morals, the result isn't progress. The result is
> social catastrophe.  It's this intellectual pattern of amoral 
> "objectivity"
> that is to blame for the social deterioration of America ..."

That "morals have been declared intellectually illegal" by an S-O dominated 
society seems a tad extremist, even for a non-SOMist.  When did such a 
declaration attain legal status?  Could the author possibly have had 
'political correctness' in mind?   And how is society to be governed by 
moral standards that are not derived from the "subject-object patterns" 
which are the history of individual experience?  Could this be an argument 
for a collective morality?

When a society declares "there are no values and no morals" it becomes 
nihilistic.  While I also deplore the fact that Western Society is moving in 
this direction, I don't think we can blame it on an "intellectual pattern of 
moral 'objectivity'."  I view cultural nihilism as the consequence of an 
intellectual decision to renounce spiritual values -- an elitist movement, 
incidentally, that is not countered by a collectivist thesis like the MoQ.

To answer Mati's original "litmus test", I would define intellect (in the 
collective sense) as the product of individual reasoning.  Human beings are 
unique among the species in that we constantly rationalize our experiential 
existence into an organized whole.  We discover principles and formulate 
concepts, like the law of natural selection, that give meaning to the 
physical world.  Civilization is the result of similar rationalization 
applied to the conduct of humans living collectively.  Each community or 
culture reaches consensus as to the moral code it must follow in order to 
preserve its historical values.

There's nothing mystical about this, since human beings are capable of 
intellectualizing and discerning values.  Only when you deny value and 
intellect as proprietary to the individual and try to define tham as 
abstract extracorporeal levels does existence become mysterious and 
incomprehensible.  I submit that the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical 
Imperative can be simply stated as the principle of "rational self-directed 
value".

Thanks all,
Ham