[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[John Carl]

Hey Arlo,

Somehow this slipped past me unnoticed.

>
> [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:

Upon further contemplation Arlo, I agree.  Intellect arises from experience,
not SOM.  How about this then, SOM arises from the intellect choosing as its
fundamental  value, intellect.  The big "S" here in SOM, stands for the
Intellectual Subject assuming itself as the center of all value.  Just as
Ron pointed out that SOM could also be called "objectivism", in the exact
same way, SOM could be called "Subjectivism".




> [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:

Yes, Qualityism is a good term to contrast with intellectualism or
objectivism.  When I say, "within the MoQ", I'm thinking the ideas Pirsig
gave birth to, setting out on and evolving a life of their own.  Just like a
biological child takes off in directions that the parent can't always
control, so too does Qualityism evolve and develop according to 4th level
patterning that isn't predictable or controllable.

What have they done, to my song, Ma?



> [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.
>
>

John:

Well, Art that doesn't make sense is just as bad as Science that is ugly.  I
agree they should be united. But every dance requires a lead and I got the
idea originally from Shlain's Art and Physics, that the aesthetic does
usually lead society to start thinking.  I also got the idea from Pirsig,
that rationality is an art.  And then I scanned that document you shared
with me on Dewey, which confirmed the leading edge being the artistic
consciousness.

So I think there is a viable argument to be made.

Arlo:


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.
>
>
John:

Yes, I do see that.  It seems to me that we pretty much agree that this
fusion of the classic/romantic divide is the ultimate goal - the 4th level
in all its glory, and the highest evolutionary development of existence.

But do you see then, that calling this 4th level "intellectual" is giving
all the prominence to the classic side?   Therein lies my problem with the
label.  And if that problem could be cleared up, I believe it would take the
sting out of "Bo's MoQ", as you term it.

Yours,

John