[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Mary]

Hi Steve,

> Hi John, Ron, Mary, all,
> 
> I think intellectual quality is is like every other sort of quality,
> isn't it? It is just the usual undefined betterness of Quality. When
> we say an idea is good we mean "good" in the same way we do when we
> say a chocolate cake is good. What distinguishes intellectual quality
> from other sorts of quality is only the sorts of patterns we are
> referring to with this general undefined betterness. Intellectual
> patterns are patterns of manipulations of symbols. What emerged in the
> evolution of the intellectual level was not a new Quality but a new
> sort of way of having quality.
> 
> What makes one pattern of manipulation better than another? We can
> only say after the fact by inferring from the sorts of patterns which
> have risen to the top as recognized for their high quality. Ones that
> cohere with out other high quality patterns of symbol manipulation are
> generally seen as good as are ones which follow the laws of logic
> (which is again a sort of coherence with other patterns deemed to be
> of high quality). Simple explanations are favored over complex ones.
> Ones which explain a broad range of experience are favored over ones
> which only explain a narrow range of experience. We favor dynamic ones
> that say something new, yet not so new as to be incoherent with our
> existing patterns. Some intellectual patterns such as a Beethoven
> symphony are generally thought of as good, but we still haven't come
> up with ways of describing what is good about them since coherence,
> logic, and parsimony don't seem to fit (though musicologists can come
> up with other ways of describing their quality).
> 
> Notice that nowhere in here did I need to appeal to a metaphysical
> subject-object dichotomy. 

[Mary Replies] 
Ummm... better/worse, rising to the top/sinking to the bottom, broad/narrow,
new/not so new, musicology?  Any subjects/objects in that list?

Distinguishing things which are
> ontologically objective from those which are ontologically subjective
> is only one particular intellectual practice. 

[Mary Replies] 
It is THE intellectual practice.  Can't escape it.

It is far from the only
> one. For Mary, in case I've sounded too highbrow, I'll close by saying
> the SOL is just dumb..

[Mary Replies] 
Uhhh, cool, dude!  Gotta run.  SouthPark starts in a few.