[MD] Arlo's Rant and 3rd levels

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --

[Ham, previously]:
> John believes that non-human nature precedes both.

[Arlo]:
> As does Arlo. And more so, as does Pirsig.  Let's be clear
> about that.  Inorganic-biological-social-intellectual.

Okay, Pirsig, Arlo and John all believe that non-human nature precedes
society, and society precedes intellect.  (I'm never sure about people's
beliefs based on their interpretations of the MoQ, which is why I separated 
the statements.)  However, it would seem to me that what you guys are 
calling "intellect" is human, whether at a social or individual level of 
nature.  All the rest -- inorganic, biological, social -- are "non-human". 
Although I find it difficult to understand how the human intellect arises 
out of society (which is non-human and precedes it), I won't quibble over 
the official order of things.

Now when events precede each other we call it "evolution", and when later
events dominate earlier events we have an "evolutionary hierarchy in
process".  In a manner of speaking, what we're defining here is the evolving
universe, or "existence" as we know it.

[Ham]:
> What's wrong with Descartes' own conclusion: "I think, therefore I am"?
> Simply that it does not acknowledge the otherness of which his thought
> consists.

[Arlo]:
> There is nothing wrong with it per se, except when it is used to support
> a non-social view of intellect. Pirsig was taking this commonly used
> dictum and placing it in a larger context, or rather he was adding the
> context that must be there for it to hold as "true".
>
> In order to "think", Descartes needed a language/culture. Once
> assimilated, "self-evident" is biased. "Our intellectual description
> of nature is always culturally derived" (Pirsig).

Are you saying that society (i.e., the social level) equates to 
"language/culture",
and that this is what creates man's notion of selfness (subjectivity)?   If 
that's correct, it means we use the language of our culture to "talk 
ourselves" into reality.  How conflated an an epistemology be!?

Intellection is something individuals do, socially or by themselves.  It's 
the analytical function of conscious awareness, not a repertory of knowledge 
hanging around in the social milieu waiting for people to latch onto it.

[Ham]:
> But of course nothing is more [self-] evident than one's thinking.

[Arlo]:
> I'd say Quality is. "Thinking" is an abstraction from the flow
> of experience, but since it derives from experience, I'd say
> that experience (Quality) precedes "thinking", and hence is
> "more evident". Nothing is more evident than the
> Quality-moment of NOW.

I'd say that experience is acquiring knowledge, which is not possible 
without thought.  Where Quality (Value) is concerned, I agree that it 
precedes thinking; but it is not experience.  It is what I call 
"value-sensibility" and define as the essence of being aware.  Valuation 
leads to experience but, like intellection, does not exist without a 
conscious agent (i.e., subject).  This may seem like only a semantic 
disagreement to you, but I consider it critical to acknowledge 
value-sensibility as primary to (experiential) existence.  I believe with 
Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things" and that the universe is 
anthropocentric.  The Pirsigian believes that the evolutionary world is 
primary and divides it into four levels of quality

> But in the end any "metaphysics" that ignores or contradicts
> or denies "evolving in time" is meaningless and irrelevant.

What is metaphysically meaningless is a transitional universe in which man 
is an irrelevant byproduct -- a universe that arises from nothingness and 
"moves toward betterness" for its own purposes.

But, in the end, each individual must find his own meaning in life, whether 
it has the support of an authoritative source or not.

Best wishes,
Ham