Hello Bo --
[Ham, previously]:
I don't think Plato's idealism was founded on the idea that
man "becomes 'mind'"; rather, it was that "things are ideas
(essences)" perceived by man.
[Bo]:
What emerged was the notion of existence as divided into
one illusory component and one permanent ditto. With Plato
it was "appearance/ideas", with Aristotle "form/substance".
It really started much earlier with the search for eternal principles,
but I can't repeat it all. At least Pirsig's idea is that's this initial
split has grown through many phases to end up as a conviction
that existence is split this way -from eternity till eternity (AKA
SOM even the terms subject and object is more recent)
The main thing is that such a split arrived with in Greece in the
last millennium BC (in the Western world, but that's another discussion)
As said the phases have varied. Plato's sounds as if ideas are
the permanent part (objective) while it with Aristotle had turned
180 degrees and "substance" is the real thing: This is closer to
present day mind/matter variety where mind is subjective and the
physical world objective, hence Pirsig's remark in ZAMM "...
with Aristotle the modern scientific attitude is born".
I don't see the necessity of reviewing history in a discussion of what you
and I regard as fundamental metaphysics. Whether or not Aristotle went off
on a tangent of his own from Plato's idealism may be important in
understanding philosophical development, but it only complicates what we are
trying to establish here.
[Ham]:
> To me the fundamental split (i.e., primary division) is between
the absolute whole (Essence) and the experience of finitude
(differentiated beingness).
[Bo]:
Right, but the "Essence/Experience of finitude" division required
a previous stage where DIVISION into a permanent and an
illusory part came to be, namely the differentiated beingness that
(according to Pirsig) arrived with the Greeks as SOM. Your
Essence metaphysics is an exact match to the first Quality
metaphysics in ZAMM: Essence or Quality spawning the
differentiated (subject/object) beingness.
We ALL experience reality as subjects relating to objects. The Greeks may
have defined what Pirsig now calls SOM, but as far as I'm concerned humans
have always perceived reality that way, so it needs no "metaphysics" to
support it. .
[Bo]:
This sounds obvious, but Western acadmical philosophy
knows no Existence or Reality prior to "differentiated
beingness" (S/O) It postulates a subjective existence and
an objective existence, full stop!
And - again - this arrived with the Greeks.
And again, only from this division platform could a more
fundamental division be worked out, meaning that the MOQ
could only grow out of SOM as could your Essentialism.
Your mistake is to think that humankind before the Greeks
would have realized this had they just been as great thinkers
as ourselves.
Had they been thinking intuitively, in metaphyical terms (rather than being
influenced by gods and ideological "essences", I see no reason why their
thought should have been less "great" than ours. Plato's Republic was a
monumental step towards organizing the social structure, as was Aristotle's
objective approach to scientific understanding. I would not disparage the
intellect of the Greek philosophers in systemizing human knowledge and
understanding.
Yes, Essence transcends finitude (differentiated beingness)
in the same way as Quality transcends SOM - or its source
as Pirsig's first proto moq had it. In the final MOQ however
"differentiated beingness" is its intellectual level...at least as I see
it.
Again, you are making a cosmic level out of a uniquely human function. This
is where you and I are on different tracks. I don't see Intellect as a kind
of "Quality" floating around in the cosmos, waiting for man to "latch onto"
it. Essence is not intellect, intelligence, knowledge, or morality. All of
these attributes are man's understanding of his relation to otherness (i.e.,
experiential existence). The primary, "eternal" source of being-aware is
not the physical universe. Sensible experience begins with the
differentiation of otherness (being) from Essence. It is the appearance of
finitude (objective reality) as apprehended by a sensible subject.
"Intelligent Design" is simply the logical order, or symmetry, which man
applies to the universe in the process of interpreting his experience. Take
away cognitive awareness and there is no experience, universe, intellect, or
quality.
I understand you perfectly, but you seem unwilling to understand
me, till now at least, perhaps this will be the turning point?
I am perfectly willing (and anxious) to understand you, Bo. My problem is
accepting the notion that Intellect is a superhuman quality. Your cosmology
would have us deify intellect, making it the Creator of the universe. I
could understand Love, Consciousness, Beingness, or even Value as the
ultimate reality; but not Intellect. For me, intellect is the
psycho-neurological capacity of the cognizant subject to derive intelligence
(relational knowledge) from value-sensibility. It does not exist
independently of man.
[Ham]:
Thanks for your patience, Bo.
[Bo]:
Likewise, this is a metaphysical discussion and in that
respect you are true to its clauses.
Could you, then, elaborate on what it is about Intellect that convinces you
of its primary status? For example, what is intellect in an unrealized
state? Do you believe the universe itself to be intellectual? Or, is
Quality a "cognizant" essence? I'd also appreciate it if you would explain
your concept of intellect without resorting to "levels".
Thanks again, Bo.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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/
