[MD] Re the intellectual level

[Ham Priday]

Andre, Horse, Platt, Bo and All --

On 11/2 at 4:20 PM Horse said to Platt::

> I think the main problem I have with the idea that SOM and
> Reason are identical is that in order for this to be correct,
> then Bo's SOL would be correct and I just don't believe this
> is the case.
> And neither does Pirsig, so I'm in pretty good company.

Platt responded with this quote from ZMM:

"Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and
true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of
philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking
something down into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and everybody
else means) by the word 'quality' cannot be broken down into subjects and
predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious but because
Quality is so simple, immediate and direct."

On 11/10 Andre responds:

> I agree. To reduce Reason to pure SOM is to reduce
> reasoning's capacity to SOM's confines.(conventional
> reason = SOM because of the myth of being informed by
> the objective world).
> The MoQ, in its ability to reflect upon itself (as static/dynamic
> intellectual pattern) exposes this postulate as myth. It is not so
> Why? Because reason is mediated socially/organically/inorganically.
> The MoQ has recognised that its reflective capacity/ capability
> is made possible through its grounding in the social, i.e social
> mediation through its dependence and 'struggle with its parent levels
> ((in)organic patterns.  Reason is made subjective and therefore
> provisional.Man is the measure...but with a healthy respect for
> and guidance by, its parent levels.

Most of the above is an argument to refute Bo's assertion that the 
Intellectual Level is SOM.  As a "non-levelist", I see this as beating a 
dead horse.

Let's start with Pirsig's statement: "The process of philosophic explanation 
is an analytic process, a process of breaking something down into subjects 
and predicates."  Isn't all reasoning such a process?  And don't we need a 
relational system (SOM) in order to reason?  Don't we also need a relational 
word of finite things in order to apply logic, mathematics, comparative 
analysis, and cause-and-effect?  If we call these reasoning processes 
Intellectual (without the "level"), then Bo is right -- not the SOL 
proposition that "Intellectual Level = SOM", but that SOM is the level at 
which intellection occurs.

Andre's response is that "to reduce Reason to pure SOM is to reduce 
reasoning's capacity to SOM's confines: (conventional reason = SOM because 
of the myth of being informed by
the objective world)"  But Reason IS confined to being informed by the 
objective world.  That's what reasoning is.  To intellectualize is to reason 
objectively.  Can anyone deny this?

As for the "morality" alleged to be implicit in MoQ (which makes it 
incompatible with SOM), man is blessed in having two uniquely human 
attributes: the ability to reason and sensibility to value.  That makes him 
the measure of all things.  Consider this statement by Ayn Rand: "Reason is 
man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action."  By 
propitious use of both capabilities, he has the power to change his world 
for the betterment of himself and his fellow creatures.

Thus, for the Essentialist, the "moral imperative" is: Rational, 
self-directed Value.  (And it doesn't even require a knowledge of levels or 
patterns!)

Respectfully submitted,
Ham