[MD] Intellectual Level

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mark]
Yes, you are pointing to the distinction between 
mind and matter, something that has always been 
at the center-point of religions and 
philosophies, particularly the metaphysical.

[Arlo]
Not sure how you get this, but its not what I 
said. You said "SOM is used for communication", 
and this is an incorrect use of the term "SOM".

"SOM" is a specific metaphysical position that 
declares "subjects" and "objects" to be the primary division of "reality".

The fact that we communicate (often) using 
"subjects" and "objects" has nothing to do with 
the SOM premise. In other words, "SOM" does not 
mean the grammatical use of "subjects" and 
"objects", but again refers to a very specific metaphysical position.

[Mark]
What, if I may ask, is doing the selection?

[Arlo]
Pirsig approaches this topic in his discussion 
about hypotheses, and brings Poincare and 
Einstein into the mix. Pirsig uses the analogy of 
a "knife", Einstein is quoted as describing it as 
""Evolution has shown that at any given moment 
out of all conceivable constructions a single one 
has always proved itself absolutely superior to 
the rest," and let it go at that." (ZMM) 
Poincare, Pirsig mentions, "hypothesized that 
this selection is made by what he called the 
"subliminal self," an entity that corresponds 
exactly with what Phædrus called preintellectual awareness." (ZMM)

Peirce, I'd add, talks about this via his ideas 
on Abduction, saying that "we often derive from 
observation strong intimations of truth, without 
being able to specify what were the circumstances 
we had observed which conveyed those intimations" 
(Peirce), something Eco describes as "an instinct 
which relies upon unconscious perception of 
connections between aspects of the world" (Eco).

To me this intuitive, knife-wielding, 
sympathetic, unconscious, subliminal self is what 
you are asking about, and I don't think there is 
any way to approach this apart from analogy, and 
I think far better ones were given above than I could give.

In the language of Hofstadter, you are attempting 
to use a mirror to reflect itself, and the only 
thing you'll get is infinite regress. Not that 
this is a bad thing, it points to the missing 
space in the center of Magritte's The False 
Mirror, the unavoidable paradoxical recursion 
that is at the heart of any symbolic system that 
is turned back on itself (which is, in effect, what you are doing).