[MD] Intellect and Understanding

[KAYE PALM-LEIS]

Ham,
Ham:
> 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.

Mati: "Offical doctrine" hmmmmmm....  ok sure.  "Nothing can dissuade"
me, well that is why we have these discussions. From my very limited
vantage point I could be easily dissuaded by stronger case for
intellect. Awareness/Being split is interesting but then how does such
a split holdup in MOQ account for intellect.  It seems to me it
doesn't have anything to do with the intellect that Pirsig had in
mind.  I realize some could say the same for Bo's SOL idea as well,
however what Bo has been able to do is expose the elephant in the room
that Pirsig's of intellect is the weakest link in MOQ.  SOL is one
proposed idea that seems to rectify that issue. I keep reading to
perhaps see if anybody has a better idea in the context of MOQ.
Awareness/Being as said is an interesting approach and it might give
us a unique perspective to understand some other aspect of ourselves,
but lets all the hens out of the hen house when it comes to nailing
down intellect.  Inorganic is nailed down pretty good, biological
isn't going anywhere, social ... well there are some issues too...
however I humbly contend until we nail down Intellect MOQ's
contribution to the world is seriously compromised.  As far as SOL, no
other proposal has gone through the ringer so many times and still
remains intact.

Ham:
> I fear you have picked up a misconception (from Bo a la Pirsig) that 'S/O'
> is a formal "philosophical concept"

Mati: You got to be kidding, when I did my doctoral work and had to
understand research methodology it was steeped deep into S/O divide.
In much of the traditional research scratches the surface on this
issue. Positivism was an over reliance on Objective tradition of the
50's-70's and many said hey the world is not only constructed of the
objective there is plenty to learn from the subjective realm as well.
But how to develop research methodologies that can look at subjective
data and find truth in it.  "Formal Concept"?  Pirsig was not the
first to wrestle with the issue of S/O divide and see it as really
incomplete.  But I would suggest MOQ is currently the alternative to
seeing the world through s/o rose colored glasses.

Ham:
 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.

Mati: This might be true to some degree but intellect has long view as
a product of the "mind" which has some limitations. Those limitations
seem to be shored up to a large degree with MOQ and SOL.

Ham:
> 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: Which came first, Awareness of self that was not tethered to the
social level or S/O dichotomy?
> [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.
Ham:>
> 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?

Mati: Ahhhh.... well you are big on awareness and that is ok, I am
guessing that we are agreement that awareness is about being aware of
values.  Which values, and how do we discriminate them to what
purpose.  You and Pirsig are also right that the exact moment of the
advent of intellect is pretty difficult to nail down, historically
speaking.  The the significance of such information would validate
what intellect is.  A long standing issue with Bo's idea is that, ok
it is "an" intellect, but not thee intellect.  I contend S/O is the
first means to establish values not tethered to the social level and
that since then, the validation of any idea's credibility since then
as a truth has be beholden to the S/O divide.  I am a believer you can
learn a lot from history.

Ham:
> 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."

Mati: From the definition of intellect that you prescribe to your
point is valid.  And perhaps the pattern from which rational thought
was not beholden to the social tethers shouldn't be called intellect,
but it is the best word I think we got.  What I do believe is there
was a shift in understanding the world around that was a one time
historical event.  The fall out from this event is that people could
begin to move beyond the tether of the social level to understand the
world around them.  You find out this historical point of the shift
and I am sure they will make an international holiday in observance of
it. :-)

Ham:
> 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: I know this is just more of the some old argument but it is an
SOM perspective issue.  Stop and think about it for a moment "pattern
that senses or realizes patterns"  Hmmm.... I think you are on to
something here!

Ham:
> 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.

Mati: I gave it brief look over and it would take some time for me to
read it and digest it.  Yes our worldviews are different, though I am
a bit curious as to have you worldview has to tell me.  In the
meantime I will perhaps stop,think and reflect.

Take care.
Mati