[MD] Multiculturalism scam

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Platt --


> I don't know what's "problematic" about intellectual.
> Isn't your Philosophy of Essence intellectual?
> Does it not categorize?

No, not really, unless "categorizing" is thought to include the primary 
division of Self and Other.  Intellect is the reasoning capability of a 
human being.  It's a practical tool for making order out of experience and 
controlling the environment for man's use, of course.  But to equate it with 
value is like equating an automatic combustion engine with motion.

The many kinds of value are no more than an intellectually differentiated 
perspective of the subject's relation to objective otherness which is a 
"valuistic" relationship.  Indeed, there are as many varieties of 
experiential value as there are events experienced, from the beauty of a 
sunset to fluctuations in what a dollar will buy.  Since all experience is 
value-based, the essentialist looks at Value as the attractive/repulsive 
force of our essential source.  The breakout of what is valuable and what is 
undesirable is the subjective assessment of a free value-sensible agent.

[Ham, previously]:
> Defining value as a triadic axiom is not only epistemologically unsound
> but philosophically deceptive.  It's a metaphoric scheme invented by
> Pirsig to circumvent the fundamental subject/object duality.

[Platt]:
> Well, yes and no. It's invented by Pirsig, true. But not specifically with
> the purpose of circumventing SOM. Rather, with the purpose of explaining
> the world better than SOM can. So, your list of values falls neatly into
> Pirsig's moral levels -- sensory (biological), rational (intellectual),
> aesthetic (Dynamic), cultural (social plus intellectual), academic
> (intellectual), culinary (biological), musical (Dynamic). Moral values, of
> course, subsume all levels.

Even if Pirsig didn't postulate his triad of value levels as an SOM 
alternative, how does such parsing of value functions help us understand the 
world better?   Are we not able to distinguish monetary values from 
psycho-emotional values?  Do we not know the difference between the market 
value of a home and the aesthetic value of a Picasso painting?  Or the value 
of individual freedom as opposed to the tyranny of the state?  What do the 
labels "biological", "social", and "intellectual" add to this understanding?

> The MOQ is clear in stating that higher levels depend for their existence
> on the lower ones. As for judging a culture by it's intellect, wouldn't 
> you
> agree that a culture that protects an individual's right to speak freely
> (an intellectual value) is superior to one that doesn't?  (A rhetorical
> question no doubt.)

No, it's a legitimate value-related question.  I don't view intellect as 
"higher" or "lower" than biology.  We need both to survive and flourish in a 
civilized world.  My concept of what is an individual's right in America is 
obviously not in accord with what a follower of Islam believes is right in 
his nation.  Either of us may claim "intellect" as the final word for our 
belief and behavior, but that doesn't resolve the problem because our 
respective value systems are in conflict.  The only way to change human 
behavior is to change the values that motivate it.  The history of mankind 
has been shaped, not by intellect, but by the values most precious to human 
beings.  And, whether we call them "intellectual" or "rational", the social 
values of a culture invariably influence the behavior of its people.

You and I have observed citizens of a nation that holds individual freedom 
sacred disagreeing as to whether laissez-faire capitalism is more rational 
or "intellectual" than state-sponsored socialism.  One may argue that 
"spreading the wealth" to achieve social equality is consistent with Kant's 
Categorical Imperative, and is therefore a rational goal.  You're getting 
that argument thrown back at you with every comment you've posted in this 
thread.  What is morally superior to you and me by "intellectual standards" 
is "white supremacy" or "racial bigotry" to Arlo and DM.

Since Intellect, like Value, is subjective, you won't win this argument by 
preaching the domination of intellectual values from Pirsig's pulpit.

Anyway, I wish you and yours all the best in 2009.

Essentially yours,
Ham