[MD] Intellectual Level

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
Subjects and objects are the primary division of reality.

[Arlo]
According to a metaphysical stance Pirsig calls "SOM", yes.

[Mark]
OK, so what is a subject?  What is the difference between a subject and an
object.

[Arlo]
In simplest terms, within subjectivism the subject is what creates "reality",
it is the only thing that is "real", while within materialist or objectivist
theories the subject is imaginary, pretend and unreal, and only material
objects are real. The difference between the two is, simple, which is "real"
depending on the particular viewpoint of the theorist. 

[Mark]
As such, what is this metaphysical position that you are subscribing to? 

[Arlo]
I agree with Pirsig that "subjects" and "objects" are patterns of value that
emerge from the Quality event, and are conventions we use to describe bundles
of patterns. So I'd agree that a metaphysics that holds the primary distinction
of "reality" to be Dynamic/Static aspects of Quality as one that is better.

[Mark]
What you present does not say anything except what others have used as names. 
If it is a knife, does this knife act on its own?  Your quote from Einstein is
simply a description of evolution which is teleological, as you know.

[Arlo]
As I said, these are all analogies that are better than any I could offer. They
resonate with me, so coming up with a different analogy just to be "different"
is unimportant to me.

[Mark]
With your last quote from Pirsig, are you saying that this pre intellectual
awareness chooses the awareness? 

[Arlo]
"Chooses"? No. I don't think I'd agree with that. But again you are attempting
to capture a mirror image of a mirror, Mark. 

I will say, again, it is a fascinating area of discourse, but I don't think
you'd be content having it with me, because you seem to be asking what is in
the hole in the center of Magritte's The False Mirror, and the point is that
its simply something the eye (I) cannot see.

Like I said, Peirce wrote a lot about this in his ideas on Abduction, which
parallel Einstein and Poincare and Pirsig in their question about where
hypotheses come from (how do we select certain hypotheses from the infinity of
possible ones, is a near exact restatement of your question).

I do not have any further insights into that, Mark, again I think these people
have explained it very well and I see little value in reinventing that wheel
just to put a "Copyright 2010: Arlo" sticker on it.

I'll try short answers at your remaining questions, but you likely won't be
satisfied.

[Mark]
Are you saying that the pre-intellectual awareness is the soul?

[Arlo]
No, but some have used this analogy. I think its too anthropomorphic for my
tastes, as it seems to just create a person-inside-a-person.

[Arlo]
Where is the division between the pre-intellectual and the intellectual? 

[Arlo]
I think intellect has a coherent structure. I know you hate this, but here is a
supporting quote from ZMM.

"Value is the predecessor of structure. It's the preintellectual awareness that
gives rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on the basis of value,
and really to understand structured reality requires an understanding of the
value source from which it's derived." (ZMM)

[Mark]
What causes it? 

[Arlo]
I assume by "it" you mean "pre-intellectual awareness". What "causes" it
(though I would not use the word "cause") is Quality.

[Mark]
If you say the intellect comes from such pre-intellectual self, then this is
what I stated originally which you refuted (look back over our conversation).

[Arlo]
What I disputed was the idea that intellect is part of the pre-intellectual
awareness. Yes, intellect derives from this awareness, but this awareness
precedes intellect.

[Mark]
Therefore as I stated that intellect was part of this pre-intellect.

[Arlo]
Yes, this is what you stated, and this is what I disagreed with.

[Mark]
Still I am left with the question, how is this selection done?  Is it done to
us by Quality?  Do we have any control over it?  

[Arlo]
Interesting questions, I am sorry I don't have answers. My guess is that, no,
it is not "done to us", but neither do we "control it". 

[Mark]
This does not have to go through endless regression like a paradox unless you
want it to. 

[Arlo]
Unfortunately, it does. There is no way to use a mirror to reflect itself, if
you bend it around what you get is infinite regress. This is (a la Hofstadter)
the recursion inherent in powerful enough symbolic systems (derived from
Goedel). When Pirsig turned scientific methodology back on itself, he
encountered this same unavoidable recursion.