[MD] Re the intellectual level

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha --



> At 12:50 PM 11/10/2008, you wrote:
>> To intellectualize is to reason objectively.  Can anyone deny this?
>
> I'd like to know exactly how you are defining the word 'objectively'?

I define "objective" as the dictionary does: "Having the status of or 
constituting an object ...as belonging or related to an object to be 
delineated."  The things we reason about are causes and effects, human 
virtues, proper or expedient actions, probable risks or outcomes, punitive 
judgments, and logical propositions -- all of which are based on a 
relational world of objective phenomena.

This is true even in the art world with which you are familiar.  You select 
a scene or motif to paint from a variety of possible subjects, choose colors 
that contrast or blend with each other, and decide on the focal element 
relative to the composition.  The composer of music works the same way, 
usually starting with a theme he wants to develop, scoring harmonies, 
variations, rythyms and tempos from the options available, and deciding on 
the instruments or orchestration that will be most effective.  Try painting 
or scoring in a monotone.  Try reasoning about a monad.  It doesn't get you 
very far.  In fact, it's impossible.

Why do you think Pirsig refued to define Quality?  Why do you suppose I had 
to search back to the 15th century to find a definition for Essence that 
could be expressed as a logical proposition?

We live in a relational world and are so accustomed to differentiation and 
variety that we take it for granted.  All our reasoning depends on the 
relationship of one thing to another.  Intellection, or logical analysis, is 
comparative.  A = B, not C.  X relates to Y, not Z.  If  A is the cause of 
B, and B equals C, A is the cause of C.  And so on.  If you're dealing with 
an absolute, your logic is limited to A is A, which is hardly an 
intellectual breakthrough.

I guess you get the idea.  I'll be interested to see how you challenge it.

Regards,
Ham