[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[John Carl]

dang, hit the send button accidentaly before I was done.

Please let me try again..

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:59 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry for the tardy, Bo.  It's summertime and the livin' is busy...
>
>

> Well I don't see it that way.  First, "biological controls" is a misnomer.
>  Those do occur, but they occur "naturally", as in without
> intellectual/intelligent manipulations.
>
>

Second, I thought you were one of the chief proponents of the importance of
the distinction between intellect and intelligence.  If this is so, you
oughta concur that where we make the metaphysical cut is important, eh?

Third, your understandings of "force" and "control" don't jibe with my
interpretation of Reality.

Stone agers don't need police, they've got each other.


>
>
>>
>> > If you argue the evolutionary development of a human from an ape-like
>> > ancestor, I'll go along with you.  But I'll insist that until that
>> > ape-like ancestor develops the uniquely human capacity of language
>> > (not mere communicative grunting, but symbolic manipulation and
>> > representation) THEN and only then do you have what I term, "a human".
>> > And that symbolic language IS intellect.  All gods and myths arise
>> > from symbolic representation of reality, and thus all are of 4th
>> > level, or intellectual thinking.
>>
>>
Bo:

> I have problems understanding  what you object to: the MOQ or my
>> interpretation I didn't  think you preferred DMB's yet  about "intellect
>> =symbolic language" is playing straight into his hand.
>
>


John:

Yeah, I know, and I don't care.  In fact, I'm glad.  It lends a frisson of
intellectual honesty when one is forced to agree with one's intellectual
adversary, don't you think?

tho, I'm sure he wouldn't see it that way.

Bo:

> The Q-
>> intellectual level occurred when people realized that "language is
>> symbols in contrast to the what it symbolizes" and moreover "that
>> thoughts are subjective turning of mental wheels in contrast to the real
>> world out there"  ... this and a million similar subject/object contrasts
>> comprise the VALUE of the intellectual level. .
>>
>
John:

Don't you think people realized pretty quickly that the word for
"saber-toothed tiger" was completely different than real tigers?  That cave
drawings were separate from what they represented?  The very creation of a
representation of reality implies awareness of the difference.  So imo, you
have a very perverted view of the intellectual ignorance of early human
society.


>
>> I must make it short, I'm hampered by having to think and have other
>> chores ... fully tongue in cheek, a great painting career is going down
>> the drain due to this.
>>
>> Bodvar
>>
>> PS
>> I saw in this morning's mail that you sided with DMB, I'm not much
>> worried by that, your (embarrassing) understanding of the  MOQ
>> automatically places you over there.
>>
>>
>>
Well I'd hate to see you worry.  Let me reassure you that I value the MoQ
very highly, but I don't see myself as here (MD) to promote and improve it,
I see myself here for the MoQ to improve MY thinking and by demonstration
and sharing of my improvement, influence others to adopt the main point of
the whole MoQ - Reality's fundament is Value.

Which is rendered meaningless by the "Quality = Reality" formulation.  I
don't buy that substitution a bit.  Reality is formed by Value, not the same
thing at all.

Please roll the following syllogism around in your brain (you can do it
while painting!) and see if you have any honest way of avoiding my point to
you.



> > No one can avoid metaphysics.
>> >
>> > Metaphysics is intellectual.
>> >
>> > Therefore, no one is non-intellectual.
>> >
>>
>

John