[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

Hi Ham,
I enjoy reading your posts, so I will jump in here.

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>[Ham]
> In fact, subject-object duality is NOT a "metaphysics", despite Pirsig's
> pronouncement of it as such.  Subjects and objects are simply the way the
> actualized world (relational existence) is experienced.  There is no
> "undivided experience".  This notion, in fact, is the fallacy which has led
> to unending and unnecessary debate in this forum.  Once we understand that
> experience serves to "differentiate" Value (Quality), the SOM/SOL
> contradiction disappears.  Everything we experience is added to memory,
> which enables us to make intellectual and moral judgments relative to our
> existential position in Reality.  Intellect functions to make sense of
> experience, which is the basis of man's innate rationality.

[Mark]
In my opinion, the duality apparently inherent in experience can be
considered a metaphysics, in the same way that the concept of
non-duality which is practiced by many Eastern or mystic philosophies
can be considered a metaphysics.  You begin with the premise that
separation is real, but that is an assumption.  Yes, this is a bit of
nit picking, but it is important to recognize that there are
alternative ways to view this experience.  To view things from a
Quality perspective, in my opinion, could deny your ontology of
negation.  While this is difficult to encompass in a mechanistic
logical philosophy, awareness of such a thing is possible.  Defining
an experience is a process of looking back, or looking at oneself.
Before this occurs, there is the experience itself.  That is the
cutting edge which is spoken of.  This cutting edge happens even in
our thoughts, which means that our awareness cannot be separated as a
processing machine, as is often stated.

It is quite possible that judgements are made before we become
reflectively aware of them.  Such a thing can occur in a non-dual
state.  It is possible to exist, if only briefly, in such a state.
This is often called: "thinking without thinking".
>
[Ham]
> Cognitive awareness, sensory experience, memory recall, and intellection
> (reasoning) are all proprietary to the self.  By suggesting that Intellect
> is a level of Quality, rather than a function of the subjective mind, Mr.
> Pirsig has made epistemology incomprehensible and the self undefinable.  To
> regard a "hierarchy of levels" as a metaphysical ontology is in itself
> something less than intellectual.

[Mark]
Again, I would have to say that what you consider to be proprietary to
the self, is one of hindsight, and does not cover the complete gambit.
 Most of our existence occurs in an active state, and the appearance
of any static quality is the result of a memory trail.  However, even
memory recall is active (on the cutting edge), so we can consider that
the static quality we believe to be present is not.  Of course leading
ones life in this active cutting edge (without memory) would be
somewhat detrimental, so the static is necessary for survival.  If the
basis for the intellectual level is the sense of self, that is, the
true core of our awareness, (that differentiates me from you, for
example), then such a level can be considered metaphysically.  It is
when such a level is reduced to rational thinking that it may lose
it's appeal.  Our sense of consciousness resides in the intellectual
level.
>
[Ham]
> Metaphysics properly begins with the problem of "division" which is not a
> "slice of Quality" but the difference between sensible awareness and its
> undivided Source.  In the absence of proprietary sensibility there is no
> existence.  Indeed, were it not for the separation of cognitive agents from
> the primary Source, there would be no experience by which to measure the
> value of goodness, greatness, virtue, or truth.  All of these "qualities"
> are relational, whereas the Source is absolute.  Take away the difference
> between selfness and otherness, and you eliminate finitude.  Since what is
> absolute can possess no other, finite "beingness" can only be actualized  by
> the negation or "exclusion" of value-sensibility from its undivided Source.

[Mark]
I would have to ask you where in our bodies does this division occur?
When does it begin on a moment to moment basis?  Certainly we cannot
point to such a thing using materialist concepts.  If these things are
relational, then where is the measurement for this relation?  I
realize that you point to some kind of Value Meter, but what is this?
Is it a function of pleasure and pain?  Are we subject to the rules of
survival as epitomized in Evolution?  You will perhaps find, that this
does not answer many fundamental questions, but merely diverts them
into more questions.  It would seem that you begin with the assumption
that we do not remember anything from before we were born (in the
Source), and therefore differentiation happened after than (for
whatever reason).  This places memory in a very strong position.  If
you lost all your memory, every single bit, and had to begin again,
would you then be a different person, or the same person just without
a memory?  That is, would your sense of "I" be different, so that
effectively you would be dead, and somebody else would be alive?  I
would propose that you would still be you.  You would just be starting
over.
>
Cheers,
Mark
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>