[MD] Post-Intellectualism

[John Carl]

Ron,


On 6/29/14, Ron Kulp <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 28, 2014, at 11:27 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 4)  Deep Ecology.  This is an also hihgly intellectuall  stance that
>> questions intellect's anthropocentric ontology.   This was what I
>> meant earlier about "antihumanism" -  faith in human-centric intellect
>> leads to absolute catastrophe.  Human rationality isn't our proper
>> source of values, Nature is our proper source of values for out of her
>> we sprang and in her we have our being.
>>
>> So the one aspect of anti-intellectualism I'd cop to, is that last.
>> My whole philosophical journey was rooted there.  I don't believe in
>> weeding out good plants.
>
> Ron:
> Two problems that need clarification
> John.
> First, intellect's anthropocentric ontology. What else could intellect
> Be but anthropocentric?

Jc:  Intellect is absolutely anthropocentric - that's the problem.
there are big issues with all forms of anthropocentrism but the cheif
one is this world isn't "for" humans.  There's an inherited bias
toward the planet as a possession of man that is flawed from the
beginning, whose final outworking is disaster.   The strongest
cohesive example I can offer is the indians.  The land didn't belong
to them, it belonged to all.  SOM inherited certain metaphysical
presuppositions from religion and this is a biggie.


Ron:

>Even when
> It focuses on the broader human good, one which encompasses care
> For and observance of the environment, it is always to enrich the human
> experience. It's job is to solve
> Problems. Human problems.

Jc:  The earth's problems are the humans problems.  Wiping out your
ecological niche is a bad move all way around, and man's very being is
bound up in the natural world - therefore man's concern ought to be
for that whole.  That.  Not man apart from that.  There is a
comprehensive intellectual critique, behind my simple words, so it's
not that intellect is evil or wrong or a bad tool.  It's just when
it's made the highest in a hierarchy or the king of the world, that it
runs into problems.


Ron:


> Some would consider human rationality an extension of nature.


Jc:  Sure, the lorax speaks for the trees, and so do I.  When we live
in nature, we express and think about the natural analogies.  When we
live in an intellectualized virtual reality, we are in trouble.

Ron:

> But you are talking about the locus
> Of values, which boils down to this,
> You interpret RMP as placing that locus on intellectual values.

Jc:  I'm not sure, actually.  I know it's a trap I avoid, and I know
it's a trap he fell into and then escaped and thus perhaps feels he
can dip in and out whenever he wants.   That may be true.  As the
discussion here has gone tho, Arlo's and DMB's point seems to be along
the lines of definding intellectual-ism.

Ron:

>But if you
> read his work, the locus of all value is Dynamic value.

Jc:  I'm talking in a practical sense Ron, what way of life do I
orient myself?  If I say to people, "DQ" they scoff at me as
anti-intellectual, even on this list which is dedicated to Pirsig's
thought.  So when the rubber hits the road, it looks like intellect is
laughing last.

Ron:

> Remember the idea that we emerge from the environment is an idea.
> A good idea but a human idea.
> All experience can only ever be our
> Hu
man experience we can "know"
> No other.
>

Jc:  Well, I beg to differ.  We can know experience of others,
especially mammals, but with deep quiet, all of being.  In fact, it is
through knowing this diversity of otherness that we know ourselves.
"the myriad things confirm the self"

> Second
>
> John Carl states:
> Without the imagination of a hall filled with sound, no
> intellectual pattern of composition can occur.   Here's a big problem,
> I have.  Where's art?  Where does art fit in?  You can say "intellect"
> but when you make intellect the arbiter of all reality, it tends to
> decide for itself what is art and what is not and that is a very bad
> idea.
>
> Ron:
> That's because you still insist "Art"
> Is separate and distinct from the human experience

Jc:  ???.  Man, you are forgetful.  No, I want to make art the apex of
human experience and knock it down a peg to at least a partner with
intellect but the way the MOQ was constructed, people have removed all
discussion of artistic endeavor and it's all intellect, intellect,
intellect.  I don't think Pirsig intended this, but in choosing
"intellect" instead of "art" as a label for the 4th level, all kinds
of orthodox heresy has come about.  I say orthodox because DMB says it
and I say heresy because while y'all sure seem pro-intellectual, from
my perspective you're being anti-Quality.



> but what you are
> Really asking is how does beauty fit
> In. How does RMP's explanation account for the beautiful in human experience
> again if you read his work
> He explains that Dynamic quality, the
> Ineffable good the force that drives and compels is the source of beauty.
> Now, some wise folks contend that
> In order to see hear feel or taste beauty to apprehend it, it must have
> Meaning. Therefore meaning, good and beauty become synonymous.
> (Experience is composed of preferences) therefore intellect and
> Art are synonymous ( the rendering of meaning from experience )
>
> But first and foremost John you do
> Realize that MOQ subscribes to
> Idealism,

Jc:  Sure Ron, I've known that for a long time.  If you remember I'd
made something of a fuss on the issue back in the day.  And since Bo
accuses me of pushing the idea that the MoQ is idealism, at least
three times a week, it's hard to forget.

Ron:

that everything we experience is derived from thoughts
> About experience.

Jc:  Yes, but about that "experience"  it's special in ways that go
beyond human intellect.  My hypothesis is that speciallness is
carried, by natural rhythms and patterns.   Moving so far beyond
nature that we don't have any contact or our children have no vital
contact, human experience is moving away from Quality.

Ron:

 Almost the entirety
> Of human experience is based on layers and layers of thoughts about
> experience. The wise then note that
> All of human experience, what we call nature and reality is an act of
> creation
> it is art!
>
> This, above all else, is what you fail
> To understand about Pirsigs explanation.
>

Jc:  I agree, of course that what you say is right.  I fail to find
support for Art in the structure of the basic MoQ.  Taken as a whole,
I do find Pirsig's explanation.  But where does Art fit in the 4
levels?  Everywhere, you say.  But where does human artistic
experience fit in?  Is it social?   Intellectual?  Biological?  None
of those seem to fit.  But if the 4th were a dualism, with art being
the leading edge, that would then  make everything fit perfect.

Ron:

> To say that Art is somehow degraded
> By making it the center of a metaphysics is not to understand
> The metaphysic.
>
> Remember it is you that has the problem with understanding art as intellect,
> art as experience and art as reality. Somehow it denigrates some elitist
> notion of art as a sacred and holy static idea to be worshiped.
> Remember it is your own prejudice
> You struggle with most.
>

Jc:  Well, duh.  We can figure out everything but our weak spot.  But
to be clear, I think art is separate from intellect in experience, as
in people tend to vary greatly in their artistic and intellectual
abilities and rarely do both sides come together in one person.  when
it does, they are remarkable because of this "both".  It takes two to
make a both.  Intellect can't do it alone.

Thanks,

John