[MD] Multiculturalism scam (re-mail)

[Ham Priday]

Greetings on the New Year, Platt --

[Please ignore the previous post.  I pushed the 'send' button before 
completing it.]


> We may have a meaning disparity. "Categorizing" to me means the
> same as "differentiating" or simply "dividing" without which intellect
> cannot function.

Categorizing to me means "classifying experience".  It is an intellectual 
process of the cognizant human being.  The "divide" that Bo and I refer to 
is metaphysical -- primary and beyond experience.  It creates the dichotomy 
Sensibility/Otherness from which value-sensibility is born as the 
experiential agent.

> To quote from your book, "Seizing the Essence," p.77:
> " . . . the Essentialist realizes the Absolute Source in the value of
> existence.
> Now, if that sounds like I´m suggesting that everything is value, in a
> metaphysical sense, I am, as I shall presently explain."
>
> I assume "intellect" fits into the category of "everything."

I also wrote that "we sense value incrementally, by degree, and we are 
always aware of it as something else."
Do you think our "intellect" is something else?  It's neither a "thing" nor 
an "other" but the very process of formulating differentiated existence from 
the Value of Essence.

> I think Pirsig would agree that "all experience is value-based," but would
> disagree that it is intellectually differentiated.  Rather, value 
> experience
> precedes intellectualization.

We are not cognizant of "pure" Value or Absolute Essence, but only realize 
it as relational experience.  This is why human beings have no direct 
knowledge of the Absolute.  What is recalled by the individual as 
"experience" is intellectually differentiated by the brain and nervous 
system.  Even Pirsig's simplistic "sitting on a hot stove" analogy localizes 
the experience to pain in the butt area (i.e., is differentiated 
sensibility).  Pure, undifferentiated value sensibility is the 'psyche' or 
subjective "I" itself.  It is primary to intellectual cognizance and cannot 
be defined in relational terms.

[Ham, previously]:
> I don't view intellect as "higher" or "lower" than biology.
> We need both to survive and flourish in a civilized world.

[Platt]:
No doubt. But, I would prefer to be a human than a germ.

Of course you would.  You are a human being by "preference" of the Creator, 
which is non-voluntary on your part.

> Seems to me that free speech is essential to create and preserve
> intellectual values. Incidentally, as suggested above, the reason our
> value system and the Islam system are in conflict is explained by
> Pirsig as a conflict of value levels -- intellectual vs. social.

The Saria law of Islam is the intellectual equivalent of the moral code of 
the Western World.  Both apply to societal relations.  Artifically reducing 
the former to a "social level", as if to distinguish religion from 
intellection is a meaningless exercise.  The conflict has nothing to do with 
levels.  It stems from the Muslim's belief in (i.e., value of) the supremacy 
of Divine Law as taught by a prophet, whereas free people value the sanctity 
of human life irrespective of religious authority.  Martyrdom, xenophobia 
and genocide are offensive to those who value human life, and are therefore 
not sanctioned by Western Society.

> Pirsig settled the argument about socialism vs. free markets in favor of
> free markets. That some here may disagree is their problem, not the MOQ´s.
> As you´ve noticed, ivory-towered left-wing radicals tend to go berserk 
> when
> challenged.
>
> Winning arguments is impossible. Preaching is often offensive. But, having
> conversations with you is always a pleasure.

Same here, Platt.  And enjoy the weekend.

Essentially yours,
Ham