Greetings, Bo [Andre mentioned] --
As the song goes, "There, you've said it again!" When Andre asked "What do
you understand by 'intellect'", you said:
I understand it as THE VALUE OF THE
SUBJECT/OBJECT DISTINCTION.
This has a certain ring of truth to it, as does its corollary principle,
which you've previously stated as: "Intellect is the Value of the S/O
divide." It's what got me interested in your SOL thesis a couple of years
ago. This concept works as a metaphysical principle much better than the
Quality hierarchy. The problem I have with it is a semantic one.
The term "intellect", which is a carry-over from Pirsig's fourth level, is
most commonly understood to mean "the capacity for rational or intelligent
thought." It seems that you are using it to mean "awareness" -- "the power
of knowing", which is a less common understanding on the word. If you could
see your way to substituting the "knowing awareness" for the "thinking
intellect", your statement would read:
AWARENESS is the Value of the Subject/Object division (duality or
dichotomy).,
For whatever it's worth, I for one would fully support this principle.
As you know, I don't makes such concessions flippantly. But the principle
as stated above is so close to the epistemology of Essentialism, that I
can't let it pass without endorsing it. For me, the essential nature of man
is his value-sensibility, and I maintain that this sensibility is rooted in
the primary dichotomy (or split) between Sensibility and "Otherness". The
term "value-sensibility" may be redundant, since value is really the "sense
of value". Unrealized value is a logical absurdity, in the same way that
awareness can not exist without being. The cognizant human being represents
a provisional coupling of two very different essents: subjective awareness
and objective beingness. And Value is what links them together in
existence.
Your explanation (to Andre) further convinces me that we may have a common
bond after all:
This (in the form of "the ability to distinguish between ...etc.)
is the original definition of the term "intellect", but has come to
mean "the ability to to think" and this makes it difficult to grasp
[what] the 4th. level. Pirsig himself has contributed to the
confusion, in ZAMM the S/O split rightfully was called "intellect",
but in the MOQ the said level is at times more like a mental,
i.e. SOM's "mind".
Intellect (the level) is a classification and "intellectual patterns"
relate to the level like all other patterns to their respective levels.
Inside outside? The MOQ is out of intellect so its classification
process is valid at the MOQ too ... like (the original social
pattern) language was adapted by intellect and now used by
the MOQ
DQ/SQ is MOQ's first axiom and Pirsig puts intellect at the top
of the static hierarchy so intellect being static is plain. However
the said "thinking intellect" is anything BUT static.
Absolutely true! We're getting too much "static" thrown at us here. The
primary dichotomy creates Difference. From there on, we have an infinitely
differentiated universe in process. The individuated subject (awareness) is
differentiated, as is the experience of finitude. In fact, not only is
experiential existence a dynamic system, all the logic, laws and principles
we attribute to it are relational. Mathematics, equations, logic, identity,
agency, description, analysis, and cause-and-effect apply only within the
framework of a changing (dynamic) relational system.
The real 4th. level however developed as described in ZAMM
as the quest for what's TRUE that automatically spawned its
counterpoint "just ...apparent, seeming, fleeing, transient".
With Aristotle the true part had become "substance vs form"
and here Pirsig says the modern scientific attitude was born.
So you see the true/apparent (in moqspeak: objective/subjective)
is 4th. level's master-pattern that has expanded beyond all
imagination. It's difficult to see our present mind/matter dichotomy
in the Greek search for eternal principles, but it's there.
I even agree with most of that, although I'm sure you will be chastised for
supporting SOM!
Bo, now that I see how you define the primary division, I'm curious to know
to what extent you accept the "self" as the knowing entity of existence. Do
you insist, as do most of the Pirsigians, that the individual is only a
"collection of PoVs"? Or do you regard the individual as a "legitimate"
existent whose feelings, thoughts, and concepts are proprietary to the
"knower"?
Thanks for this masterful analysis. It has helped to clarify your
perspective for me. I'll be interested to see how it goes down with Andre
and the MoQers in general.
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/
