[MD] Re the intellectual level

[Ham Priday]

Andre --



[Referring to Ham's comment that refuting Bo's SOL is a dead horse]:
> Apparently it isn't dead and putting it in the context of: let's throw
> it away, let's not waste time on this anymore isn't very useful
> Never throw anything away, I'd say....as it may come in useful
> someday...depending on the outcomes you want.

My point was that equating Intellect with SOM is a meaningless premise.  I 
think Bodvar is a good conceptualizer, and is sincere in his efforts, but 
his concept doesn't fit the MoQ/SOM paradigm.  You asserted 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)".  To which I argued:
> But Reason IS confined to information from the
> objective world.  That's what reasoning is.
> To intellectualize is to reason objectively.

[Andre]:
> Depends on what you are intellectualising about. Just in case you haven't
> noticed Ham, (and I mean this with respect but am also a little facitious)
> Reason is grounded in the objective world but there are also, what is 
> called
> social and intellectual patterns runing around. Reason wants to make sense
> of and explain these patterns based on its 'objectively derived' logic. 
> ...

Social and intellectual patterns "running around"?  Where are they?  (Maybe 
they're running too fast to spot.)  Isn't what you're calling a "pattern" 
really an intellectual construct -- a precept or concept?  If so, it's 
proprietary to your cognizant awareness and is your own personal POV -- a 
part of your being-aware.  You can try to commmunicate it to others,  but 
they cannot share your experiential reality.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

[Andre]:
> I would like to change this into:
> Static PoV's ought to be properly judged by our Int. PoV's to guide us
> to better action, better reasoning, better utilizing our capabilities and
> thereby creating a better world (by remaining responsive to DQ).

I don't understand the difference between "internal" and "static" PoVs.  Is 
the latter what Plato called "universals" (i.e., consensually accepted 
principles or constructs)?  Is there such a thing as a dynamic PoV?  I've 
never seen a Pirsig reference to it.  Intellect is the cognitive faculty of 
the human being.  For me all thoughts, concepts, and ideas originate with 
the individual and are neither static nor dynamic

Thanks, Andre,
Ham