[MD] Intellect and Understanding

[John Carl]

Greetings Mati,
Caught up in a low-level subroutine?   John Carl is here to help you unsort
the tangles...


On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:03 PM, KAYE PALM-LEIS <mkpalm at wildblue.net> wrote:


 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.


and then....


> 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.


Hmm.  So you see value in wrapping the concept of intellect in a S/O tether,
but recognise the futility of doing so for Quality?.

Definitions can be tricky things - they exist as exclusionary manifestos and
reside within intellect.  How does one exclude one's context?

Pirsig was probably put wise to such traps by those master trap-avoiders of
Ch'an fame.




> With the most 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 turns it potentially turns it into a house of cards.
> My belief is Bo's SOL put intellect into it's rightful place.  However
> if there is a better way to define it I am all ears.
>
>
Ears.  It's funny how these verbal ticks remain embedded in our cultural
hides.  Do you think someday we'll ever switch to "all eyes"?

But aside from that, I'd say in the simplest terms, Intellect is that aspect
of intelligence which objectifies.   In a months ago conversation with
Platt, I called it "thinking about 'about' ""

I guess with that understanding, which I seem to remember Platt rejecting,
the fourth level of Pirsig's level would be named "intelligence" which is
much broader and more inclusive than "intellect" and Bo's assertion that
intellect is S/O would make sense  with Ron's point that S/O is actually,
Objectivism - (that was a great point, Ron) and so intellectualism which
tries to objectify EVERYThing is not a separate level, with intelligence
"above", it is a subset-offshoot of the intelligence level.

Whew.

Metaphysics sure can be fun sometimes!




> 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."  If you define it this way, you can see that
> Intellect
> > is only the faculty or capability of dealing with factual information,
> such
> > as by induction or deduction, and coming up with a conclusion.



Ok Mati, when you read stuff like this?  My advice is to... RUN AWAY! RUN
AWAY!

Dictionaries.  Hmmph.

I guess it depends on how much you enjoy the merry-go-round-and-round.



> 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.
>

Ah-HA!  Not a merry-go-rounder-and-rounder then.  Good.


 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.
>


"many of us" vs, "only a few of us"

I believe these words hold a lot of significance for the nature of a
metaphysical discussion.  So much meaning is communal and really, when we
define reality, we are simply seeking a consensus upon something seemingly
independent of our personal experience and in common with others.  Seeking
commonality through DQ and NOT social pressure.

Yeah, I think we're on to something now...