[MD] Intellect and Understanding

[X Acto]

Ham,
Pirsig posits that objective scientific realism is a social value. Its what his entire theseis is
based on.

"Sociologists Judith Blake and Kingsley Davis had the following to say about values:
As long as the cultural configurations, basic value attitudes, prevailing mores or 
whatnot are taken as the starting point and principal determinant, they have the 
status of unanalyzed assumptions. The very questions that would enable us to 
understand the norms tend not to be asked, and certain facts about society become 
difficult if not impossible to comprehend".
-lila ch 5

It is the center piece of the arguement. You may disagree, but using culturally derived definitions
of the term "intellect" falls to the above "unanalyzed assumptions" as the principle determinant.
-ron


----- Original Message ----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:24:08 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect and Understanding


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.
Ham:
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.