[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Horse, all,

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> Hi Platt
>
> I think the problem here is a consequence of the idea that the Intellectual
> level is SOM.
> Why is it such a problem to see that words on a piece of paper or dots on a
> screen are not the same as the intellectual process of thinking. Is this so
> different to the idea that the music a composer imagines is not the same as
> musical notation?
> The only way we know others thoughts are through the process of expression
> in some form other than the thoughts themselves (intellectual patterns of
> value) but we know thoughts exist because we experience our own thoughts as
> intellectual patterns of value.
>
> I would still appreciate your reply relating to my 4th and 5th comments
> regarding the existence of Intellectual patterns prior to the emergence of
> SOM because there is a serious anomaly going on here.
> If SOM is the entirety of the Intellectual level and SOM didn't exist until
> approximately 500BC what was Pirsig talking about when he mentions the
> Intellect:
>
> "Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that intellect
> has functions that pre-date science and philosophy. The intellect’s
> evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an ultimate meaning of the
> universe. That is a relatively recent fad. Its historical purpose has been
> to help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies. It can do
> this well or poorly, depending on the concepts it invents for this purpose"
>
> If intellectual patterns of value didn't exist prior to SOM (SOM as the
> entirety of the Intellectual level) as you seem to be saying then how did
> SOM create the Intellectual level?
>
> This question needs to be answered.

Steve:
That quote should make it pretty obvious. I think what must be
obscuring things here is our tendency to use such shorthand as SOM and
forget that what we are talking about is not the intellectual patterns
of dividing experience into subjects and objects but the philosophy
that says that subjects and objects are what reality actually is. The
first person who began to see "self" and "other" as useful
distinctions was not doing metaphysics. Metaphysics had not yet been
invented.

Metaphysics doesn't begin with thinking but rather only begins with
philosophy. At some point people not only thought but began to
criticize thought. And it is not even until people began to be
critical of the ways people criticize thought that we had philosophy
and various metaphysical systems that fall under the heading "SOM."
Even if all such philosophies really were some form of subject-object
metaphysics (and I don't think that they all were) that doesn't mean
that all intellectual patterns are rooted in SOM. That would be
completely backwards since SOM arose as part of the criticism of the
criticism of thought rather than itself giving rise to such criticism.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy is only one
particular intellectual practice among many. Philosophy has and still
does influence thought in other practices, but to say that all thought
is SOM amounts to saying that all thought is metaphysical thought. All
thought is not done based on assumptions that all of reality is
composed of subjects and objects. Sometimes we are just trying to get
agreement on where is the best place to out for lunch. Our arguments
about which place usually has a longer wait time or which place is
closer or has a prettier waitress or better food and how to best
balance out such considerations and make concessions and promises for
where we'll go next week to manipulate others to our preference has
nothing to do with metaphysics. All reasoning is not hiking around in
the "high country of the mind." So even if you think that all hiking
around in the high country is doing subject-object metaphysics,
certainly the sophist who is applying all his reasoning skills trying
to convince his coworkers to go out to Hooters is not doing
metaphysics at all let alone SOM.

Best,
Steve