Hi Ham, > [Platt]: > > I don't think SOM can be all of intellect. > > [Bo]: > > Well if so we are back at start with a 4th. level that contains ideas, > > theories, metaphysics .. etc. in a SOM-mind sense. > > This brief exchange captures the dilemma you folks have created for > yourselves by making Intellect an extracorporeal level, pattern, or > whatever. I know that Ham's two cents aren't worth a wooden nickel in this > forum, but please hear me out. > > Intelligence is the collective knowledge of mankind that has been printed > and codified for universal understanding. But since all knowledge is > derived from experience, it originates with the individual intellect and is > communicated to other individuals for their intellectual comprehension. > While intellectual knowledge may be recorded in books or digital form, such > symbolic representations ARE NOT INTELLECT. Intellect or "intellection" > (the mental process of formulating experiential intelligence) is the > exclusive capability of the human individual. It does not exist apart from > subjective cognizance--as a "level", "realm", "pattern", or anything else. > Absent human cognizance and THERE IS NO INTELLECT.
[Platt] Above and the rest of this post is a fine example of an intellectual pattern. And I have no problem with your assertion that "Absent human cognizance there is no intellect." > Only the rational creature has the arrogance to place Intellect on a high > pedestal and deify it as Cosmic Truth, if not Reality itself. [Platt] I don't think it's arrogant to suggest that this post is real. As for the MOQ, it says intellectual patterns are but one aspect of Reality itself -- not the whole deal by a long shot, but morally superior to patterns of swamp grass. > By construing > human reason as the ultimate measure of understanding, man worships a false > god. There is no metaphysical justification for believing that Reality > conforms to man's finite perspective of his experienced world. Indeed, as > philosophers throughout the ages -- including Robert Pirsig -- have made > abundantly clear, the reverse is true: Man creates his world to conform to > his rational perspective. And the essence of experience--what starts the > whole ball of wax that we call the universe rolling--is proprietary > value-sensibility. I'll say it again, though it falls on deaf ears: Value > is man's finite perspective of an absolute source from which he is > estranged. Only a cognizant agent that is "out of the loop" has the > autonomy to make Value aware as a relational system. [Platt] I don't see where Pirsig posits "human reason as the ultimate measure of understanding." It has value to be sure, as you demonstrate in this post. But like me, Pirsig is big on aesthetic understanding which can't be explained. > Bo makes the point, but unfortunately has tied it up in knots with this > accursed Level system: > > [BO]: > > Can't you see the logical fault of a sub-set of a system containing the > > whole system? Pirsig pointed out the container metaphor, but then went on > > to violate it by placing the MOQ as an intellectual pattern. > > Exactly! So why do you all insist on dehumanizing Intellect as a cosmic > level? [Platt] I don't see where Bo or I "dehumanize" anything. Seeing a logical fault is a human ability. Creating intellectual patterns is a human ability. > [Platt]: > > Yes, I see the logical fault. I agree the MOQ is NOT an intellectual > > pattern per se but concerned primarily with non-intellectual values that > > precede concepts. Intellect has the same logical problem in attempting to > > explain consciousness: it can't get outside of it to fully observe it. An > > eye cannot see itself. > > Precisely! So why can't you see that the intellectual object of your > consciousness is no more real than you are? What you observe as Reality is > not you or Essence but the "pattern" that you construct from Value. Or, as > Bo has astutely expressed it, "the VALUE of the S/O distinction". So I am not real, Bo is not real, you are not real and this post is not real? Or is that only value patterns are real? If the latter, then consider me, Bo, yourself and this post all value patterns. That's OK by me. Best, Platt 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
