[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

>
> Hi Arlo,
>
Thanks for your responses, I think I understand a bit more.  I have a few
comments below
Mark

>
> [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]
I suppose, I do not subscribe to myself creating reality, nor am I
materialist.  However, the way I see it, if the subjective does not exist,
then any subject object metaphysics disappears on its own.  Once that is
accomplished there is no SOM, this is where Buddhist thought may take
someone.  I see all that is being described here as object-object
metaphysics, with the subject in some indeterminate place. Now perhaps I am
not viewing Pirsig's description in the right way.  But I got to the
metaphysics of quality a different way.  It was more like falling off a
cliff like Phaedrus (Pirsig) went though.  My reconstruction was slightly
different.


>
> [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]
Yes, that is one way to put it.  Moving and unmoving.  Kind of like
temporary waves that dynamically form in the sea of quality.  Some waves are
better than others.  There is also something about opposites that may lend a
better handle for others.  A dynamic interplay if you will.  Quality is what
creates the appearance of such opposites.


>  [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.
>

[Mark]
My question was more towards the perception of free will or determinism.
 James had to choose between the two, and I believe he chose determinism so
that a deity would not be required.  I don't think the self needs to be as
illusive as a mirror within a mirror.  That is just logic playing games,
like Zeno.

>
> 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.
>

[Mark]
Yes, I understand the inability we have logically define the subjective.  We
all know it is very real, but logically it does not stand.

>
> 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)


[Mark]
No, I don't think that is what I mean.  I was hoping you would explain why
you used that quote.  I was asking that when Pirsig states that we choose
certain things above others, I was wondering who he was referring to with
the "we".   The quote you provided seemed somewhat incomplete there, like he
was dividing up pre-conceptual awareness through a secondary agent, which
was deciding.   I would imagine it is that secondary agent that he thought
was the self, and thus got stuck in the SOM.  But the way he describes it,
it seems more like an object.

>
> 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.
>

[Mark]
I am satisfied with the answers you have provided, thanks. It is a difficult
subject.

>
>
> [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]
This is an interesting choice of quote.  Value selects our structure.  I
suppose that does have a ring of evolutionary theory to it.  Value could be
considered Nature in that sense.  It certainly fits with biological theory,
nothing wrong with that.  The whole notion of Natural Selection always
avoids trying to define what that is.  "Why it's nature, it's the
environment, why it's God", whatever.  They are all the same thing, the
unknown.  But scientist seem to accept that as fact.

>
>
> [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]
Yes, my only point was that intellect derives parts of the pre-intellect
that it needs to focus on (for survival?), so there is a continuum that
cannot be artificially divided.  I suppose I do not understand where the
intellect starts as far as Pirsig is concerned.  Certainly there is a lot of
intellect going on that is not at the forefront of our thoughts.  Typically
we can only focus on one or two things at a time.  However, there is much
rearrangement going on in the background.  I do not see anyway to separate
the two.  But that is my problem with what I read from Pirsig.

>
>
> [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]
Well, free will can come in as an attitude through a window into this body.
 In that way, we become more of an avatar.  This is of course not a new idea
and comes from Vedic thought.  However that makes more sense than having no
idea.  It is just rational thought at work there.  The limits of such
rational thought are simply self-induced.

>
> [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.
>

[Mark]
Yes, if you use the analogy of a mirror, I would agree with you.  My
impression would be that it is the wrong analogy for you then.  Rational
thought can go further than that.  Rational thought is created and therefore
has no limits.  The recursion is just the self-referencing of all rational
thought because it floats without any foundation.  Knowledge has to start
with some premise, this doesn't mean that the premise is on ground zero.
 However the premise can be further than a mirror analogy.  That is SOM
thinking.  You don't look back, you look out.

Cheers, all in good fun.
Mark

>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>