Hi Ham, [Ham] > I was making a statement about what Intellect really is, based upon my own > intellectual understanding. The point I was trying to make is that while > ideas and principles may be published and retrieved for use by others, the > intellect that formulates them does not exist independently of their author. > You called my statement "a fine example of an intellectual pattern." > > Since, apparently, any formulated idea or concept is a "pattern" to the > MoQer, I'll revise my conclusion thusly: "Absent human cognizance and THERE > IS NO PATTERN." If you agree with this premise, then we have no quarrel > because we're not talking about an Intellect that exists apart from the > individual. (I suspect that Bo may disagree, however.)
We have no quarrel. Patterns are human constructs -- mental nets we place over our direct experiences. [Ham] > I also said: > > 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. [Ham] > Reality itself doesn't have aspects. An aspect is a "differentiation" that > appears only in existence, or what you folks call SOM. As to the moral > superiority of an intellectual concept compared to a "pattern of swamp > grass", I'll leave that for the moralists to decide. To me "reality" and "existence" are synonyms. SOM is just one way to divide existence (direct experience). Who are the "moralists" you refer to? Not Al Gore I hope. :-) > [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. [Ham] > You've also said (to Marsha) that intellect has no role in determining what > is good. I can't agree with that assertion, since I believe morality itself > is an intellectual construct. Here we disagree. To me, morality is an intuitive sense. Even a worm knows "It's better (or worse) here." [Ham] > Remember Protagoras? Man is the measure of > all things; his measure of what is good is what we call Morality. > Incidentally, I'm big on aesthetic understanding, too. To me, an aesthetic > experience beats Pirsig's "sitting on a hot stove" analogy by a long shot. > The exhilaration we feel on hearing a favorite piece of music or seeing a > spectacular rock formation is a closer approximation of pure sensual > experience. Our innate affinity for "rapturous experience" is evidence of > our psycho-emotional nature. And while the pain we feel when sitting on a > hot stove is also "pre-intellectual", it is more properly defined as a > physiological response than value sensibility. Good point. We only disagree as to your differentiation between a response that is "psycho-emotional" or "physiological." Both are "value responses." > [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. [Ham] > As I understand the MOQ hierarchy, Intellect is posited as a higher level of > Quality than the individual that exists independently of man. If I am > interpreting this theory correctly, it would make Intellect a non-human > phenomenon, except, of course, when the individual participates in it. In > my view, to regard the intellect as anything but human is to "dehumanize" > it. Agree. I don't think the intellectual level (or the social level) is "non- human" in any way. > [Ham, previously]: > > 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". > > [Platt]: > > 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. [Ham} > Sarcasm doesn't become you, Platt, and there's really no need for it. I > used the term "no more real", implying that anything relative is a reduction > of absolute Reality (cap "R") which for me is Essence. Thus, you and Bo and > I are subjective "existents" whose "apparent reality" is contingent upon > objective (i.e., existential) being. Our posts are "patterns" of this being > which, in turn, are our "constructs" of value. In my philosophy Value is > primary in existence, just as it is in the MOQ. Experience is the > intellectual process of objectivizing value into the things and events that > constitute our existential reality. I apologize for coming across as sarcastic. Not intentional. We agree that "value is primary." But, I would not qualify it by saying "in existence." IMO, value IS existence. Further, experience, value, existence, reality are all synonyms. All precede the "intellectual process" which is always Johnny Come Lately, imposing divisions on the unity of pure value experience. [Ham} > Thanksgiving is another such intellectual construct, but enjoy yours anyway. In the MOQ hierarchy, Thanksgiving is a social pattern -- a tradition having little intellectual meaning. Gratitude and family fellowship is more emotive than cerebral. Happy Thanksgiving wishes to you and yours, Ham. 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/
