[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[John]
However, I would like to offer a different view.  I don't disparage intellect,
nor do I hate it nor do I want it eliminated.  I want it expanded...

[Arlo]
This was Pirsig's intent too.

[John]
... put in its proper place "in the scheme of things" and utilized correctly as
the excellent tool that it is.

[Arlo]
Well, its "proper place" is atop the hierarchy of static patterns of value,
according to Pirsig. I think its the "root expansion" of intellect, the "new
spiritual rationality" that moves intellect towards functioning better.

[John]
SOM is a metaphysical world view.  I don't think SOM is correct, a good tool,
nor any of those things that are valuable from an MoQ perspective. Therefore, I
DO NOT hold that SOM = Intellect.

[Arlo]
I never said you did, if that is what prompted this. But, of course, I agree
with this.

[John]
But its tricky, because intellect, isolated off and examined on its own, is
derived from a world view - SOM.

[Arlo]
And here's where I disagree. I think intellect is derived from experience,
built on a foundation of social patterns, and a metaphysical structure that
sees subject/objects as the primary division of reality will certainly inform
the subsequent intellectual patterns it gives birth to. 

So I'd say, perhaps, "intellectual patterns" are derived (informed) from a
metaphysical world view, that in the West has historically been "SOM", but does
not NEED to be SOM. 

[John]
The Moq in its very essence, says that intellect cannot be isolated and
examined on its own.  Intellect has to be expanded in order to be really
meaningful.

[Arlo]
This expansion is to "save" intellect (Western) from its "SOM" foundation.

[John]
But in the midst of this discussion of these ideas, an idea arises out of the
memory of all that has gone before.  This is actually a very old conflict
within the MoQ, eh Arlo?

[Arlo]
It is an old battle, for sure, but I'm going to drop the "within the MOQ" and
say its an old battle between Pirsig's ideas and those who disagree and are
offering something different; say a battle between Pirsig's MOQ and Bo's MOQ. 

Or maybe its just the "the MOQ" that bothers me (as I've been saying). If we
say something like "This is actually a very old conflict within Quality-ism",
I'd be fine with that.

[John]
Intellect is and should be subservient to the code of art.  I agree completely. 

[Arlo]
I think the mistake comes from connecting the "romantic" of ZMM with the Code
of Art, and the "classic" with the intellectual level. Pirsig sought to unify
these two, not elevate one above the other. 

That there is a "Code of Art" above intellect is one of those very interesting
areas of speculation and development, but I think once you see that the
romantic/classic divide has been synthesized, that the "Code" informs them
"both" in very relevant and real ways.