[MD] Intellect and Understanding

[Ham Priday]

On Friday, 9/11/09 at 10:03 PM, Mati wrote:

> Phenomenon or cultural pattern might be a more specific phrase
> that could be more accurate. However culturally SOM has so
> steeply embedded itself it is considered part of the scenery or
> in my terms creating a perception that it is undeniably real or
> reality unto itself.
>
> I think I might understand what you are getting to here. I would
> beg to differ that S/O reality a basis of a metaphysics. It certainly
> goes back to the time of Aristotle and it is hard for some to
> imagine that such a basic of philosophical concept of reality, 2500
> years old, is relevant today.  But I think Pirsig in ZMM, does a
> very good job of drawing the relevant tether it has created.  By
> showing us that this dominant tether can't be wrapped around a
> concept such as quality. Your approach of "surmise what may be
> the source (or creator)" was the ghost that Pirisg was chasing.
> My guess is that the (S)ubjective realm has long dominated the
> source of reasoning, the falacy is that only holds truth in SOM's
> kangaroo court. Again, it is part of the reason I made the comment
> as "a reality" unto itself.

I fear you have picked up a misconception (from Bo a la Pirsig) that 'S/O' 
is a formal "philosophical concept" that emerged at the time of the 
Greco/Roman empire and has been effectively "overcome" by the Quality thesis 
in the last century.  I don't know anyone, other than the Pirsigians, who 
would regard subjects and objects as "intellectual patterns", whether 
derived from Quality, Mind, or Matter.  Even the "subjectivists" (idealists) 
view reality as an ordered system of phenomena (objects) created largely by 
experience.

[Ham]:
> I think what you mean is that Intellect _per se_ is not the Subject
> or the S/O duality.

[Mati[:
> Correction, I do see the basis of intellect as S/O duality.
> My issue with Pirsig's MOQ is that there is coherent failure
> to define intellect.  With the keenest surgery he manages to
> carve out SOM for all of us to see.  Then when he creates
> MOQ the top card of the intellect level he deals us is a SOM
> Joker.  My criticism is that Joker is what is the Achilles heal
> that doesn't allow MOQ the credibility and potentially turns it
> into a house of cards.  My belief is Bo's SOL puts intellect
> into it's rightful place.  However if there is a better way to
> define it I am all ears.

You say that, Mati, but your analysis won't allow it.  Bo is simply wrong. 
Intellect is nothing but the mental function that makes factual experience 
comprehensible in terms of operating principles or logical conclusions. 
It's a function that is mimicked in many ways by the modern computer.  One 
of the precepts it develops experientially is that things and events are 
happenings that occur outside the self, in other words, that existence is a 
subject/object duality.  But the Subject of this duality is not "intellect"; 
rather, it's the knowing Self using intellect to conceptualize the duality 
principle.  I refer to the Self as "proprietary awareness"--another term for 
individual consciousness.  Without awareness there can be no concept, no 
intellect, and no experience.  Awareness, not intellect, is the essential 
(cognitive) component of the S/O dichotomy.

[Ham]:
> Why not use the dictionary definition? "Intellect: the power of
> knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will;
> the capacity for knowledge or rational thought." ...
> Clearly, what is essential to human experience is Awareness,
> and that involves "feeling" (value-sensibility) as well as "will"
> (desire or motivation).

[Mati]:
> For starters it is not a definition based on metaphysical.  Based
> on the dictionary definition (by the way there are many variations
> on this definition) the intellect it describes certainly could have
> existed long before the Greeks and could be debated in the day
> of the caveman.

Yes, but so what?  Unless you're an anthropologist, the emergence of the 
functioning intellect in time is an historical anecdote of no 
epistemological significance.  It's like trying to date the appearance of 
"self-awareness" in primates or the newborn human.  Of what philosophical 
value is such information, even if it could be established?

> Pirsig identified a metaphysical pattern that was different from
> the social level and in likelihood came in the times of the early
> Greeks.  He notes, "But if one studies the early books of the
> Bible or if one studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the
> intellectual level is conspicuously absent." ...

With all due respect to Pirsig, this is ridiculous.  How is one to determine 
that the ancient scribes had no intellectual ability?  Does setting ten 
commandments and the chronology of the tribes of Israel onto parchment not 
require intellect?  Could they have counted and established a system of 
currency without intellect?  Are the natives of Borneo or Uganda incapable 
of intellectual thought?  I'm astonished that the gifted author/philosopher 
would make such a claim and emphasize it with the phrase "conspicuously 
absent."

> You state that what, "is essential to human experience is
> Awareness, and that involves 'feeling' (value-sensibility) as
> well as 'will' (desire or motivation)." Perhaps essential,
> however what is essential to metaphysics as I see it is our
> capacity to understand what is going on around us with a
> clarity that is devoid of philosophical tail chasing.
> Perhaps Pirsig really had something else in mind for the
> pattern that sensed/or realized and what he called intellect.
> I think many of us also sense a similiar pattern, defining
> what that pattern at the heart of the matter, and S/O neatly
> contains and defines that pattern. Maybe it is only a few of us
> that really see it that way.

I'm afraid so.  I can understand a subject, a "knower", or an observer, 
because that's what I AM.  But a "pattern that senses or realizes patterns" 
is incomprehensible to me, as I suspect it is to the majority of intelligent 
people.

[Mati]:
> Yeah metaphysics is about picking up the knife and making the
> first cut into reality.  The issue of the first cut is that it can be
> made in so many places, however the strength of the first cut is
> what we understand about reality from that cut.  S/O cut was
> a stroke of genius of its day and has allowed us to understand
> so much about our world. MOQ however is a better first cut
> and now we can even learn and understand more. Arbitrary
> perhaps, but thoughtful and persuasive is the way I see it.
>
> Yeah these opening divisions into reality only give us
> incomplete understanding of the world around us.  And
> remember if I were to ask you if these categorization are real,
> you are beholden to S/O cut to justify your answer.

Mati, you are "beholden" to the official doctrine, so there's really nothing 
I can say that will dissuade you.  As far as I'm concerned, that "first cut" 
divides Awareness from Beingness. And intellect, sensibility, feeling, 
thinking, and desiring are all subsets of the former.

I do hope you will review my website thesis for a better understanding of my 
position, and get back to me with specific questions.  Otherwise, we are 
talking in different languages about two very different worldviews.

Thanks for expressing your beliefs and concerns within the MoQ context.

Best regards,
Ham