[Bo]
You see this intellectual fallacy with Krimel
> [Krimel]
> Not to step on Marsha's toes here but your assessment above strikes me as
> deeply confused. Reason is no less a subjective process than emotion. They
> are both modes that individual subjects have available for apprehending
> and processing information about the external, objective world.
[Bo]
He thinks that "all is subjective" is some profound revelation that no-
one has discovered, he has no inkling that this is intellect's eternal
see-saw: To the materialist intellect (mind) assess the external world
objectively, to the Subjectivist the external world is mind too. There is
nothing but intellect!!!! This SOM-induced dead end is what the MOQ
upends, but no-one seems to have noticed and think along the old
beaten path. "Christ, it ain't easy" as John Lennon sings.
[Krimel]
Your condescension is noted but since it is clear you really have no idea
what Krimel thinks I'll let it slide. In Lila Pirsig really does invent SOM
as his personal straw man. I do not find in his discussions of it in Lila
any clear indication of what he means by either subject or object so in this
vacuum we are each free to pursue them as we see fit. But in my view his
clearest statement of the problem is in ZMM. In talking about Kant and Hume
he says among other things:
"If all our knowledge comes from sensory data, what exactly is this
substance which is supposed to give off the sensory data itself? If you try
to imagine what this substance is, apart from what is sensed, you'll find
yourself thinking about nothing whatsoever."
Sense data is subjective that is, internal to the individual. Objects are
things in themselves (TiTs) about which knowledge is limited.
Another view of this I pulled a couple of days ago from David M's advice to
check out Lacan and ZiZek. Zizek says Descartes' cogito breaks down as I
think (subject) there I am (object).
This division between thoughts and things, however conceived, is the
problem. I most certainly do not think, as you would have me thinking, that
"all is subjective". I do think that all I know is subjective. But I do not
think that what I know is all that is.
Part of your confusion is obvious when you say, "To the materialist
intellect (mind) assess the external world objectively..." I would say
instead that the objective world is accessed subjectively.
Furthermore to speak of subjects, plural, is to miss the point entirely.
There is only one subject in my world and it is me. In your world it is you
but in my world you are an object as I am an object in yours. (I admit that
I just glossed over the issue of solipsism but intentionally so.)
I would add that objectivity is not really a matter of TiTs but of what
multiple subjects agree upon. Objectivity is in fact intersubjectivity and
that is what I always mean by the term.
I am currently reading Michael Tomasello's book on the cultural origins of
human cognition. In it he tries to make the case that the only real
difference between humans and other primates is our ability to see other
members of our species as intentional agents like ourselves. In other words
he claims we are biologically equipped to evade solipsism. I am not entirely
convinced but it is an interesting point.
Certainly our ability to adopt multiple points of view is central to being
the creatures that we are. It allows us to view others as subjects and to
conceive of ourselves as objects.
[Bo]
I pointed to the irrelevance of this your remark in a previous post, but
forgot to show that the definition of "intellect" that Marsha provided ...
1. the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or
understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and
that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of
thinking and acquiring knowledge. 2. capacity for thinking and
acquiring knowledge, esp. of a high or complex order; mental
capacity. 3. a particular mind or intelligence, esp. of a high
order. 4. a person possessing a great capacity for thought and
knowledge. 5. minds collectively, as of a number of persons or
the persons themselves.
also contains the same distinction between understanding and emotions.
"Thinking and acquiring knowledge, especially of a high and complex order"
also indicates OBJECTIVITY. However, I have no illusion that contemporary
dictionaries will speak about "intellect" in the MOQ sense , but we see that
they all draw a line between intelligence and intellect and that's
significant, because the confusion of the two is what messes up MOQ's 4th.
level for so many. We can also see that no one brings Pirsig's "manipulation
of symbol" definition.
[Krimel]
Again the unwarranted condescension is noted but ignored in deference to
your obvious confusion. Thinking of any sort is subjective. Rational thought
is an evolutionary adaptation of our species. Emotions are common, as near
as we can tell, to all or at least most mammals. Emotions are in the main
autonomic responses to events in the environment. They are hardwired. They
are directly manifest in us physiologically in terms of their effects on
heart rate, respiration, muscular contraction, production of hormones, etc.
They have valance in that they are perceived by us as having positive or
negative Value.
Our perception of the negative quality of a hot stove is product of our
evolutionary heritage not of some metaphysical entity.
Rational thought is a secondary feature of human beings that allows us to
override our emotions and to adjust our responses to current circumstances
based on our previous experiences. Circumstances could conceivably arise
where a blistered ass is preferable to falling off the stove into a pit of
vipers. Rationality helps us override emotion in the face of conflicting
Values.
If you persist in making much ado about "intellect" without bothering to
look at the vast literature that arises from the direct study of it, your
"ado" willing continue to be about nothing.
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/
