Greetings, Platt --
I don't know what's "problematic" about intellectual.
Isn't your Philosophy of Essence intellectual?
Does it not categorize?
No, not really, unless "categorizing" is thought to include the primary
division of Self and Other. Intellect is the reasoning capability of a
human being. It's a practical tool for making order out of experience and
controlling the environment for man's use, of course. But to equate it with
value is like equating an automatic combustion engine with motion.
The many kinds of value are no more than an intellectually differentiated
perspective of the subject's relation to objective otherness which is a
"valuistic" relationship. Indeed, there are as many varieties of
experiential value as there are events experienced, from the beauty of a
sunset to fluctuations in what a dollar will buy. Since all experience is
value-based, the essentialist looks at Value as the attractive/repulsive
force of our essential source. The breakout of what is valuable and what is
undesirable is the subjective assessment of a free value-sensible agent.
[Ham, previously]:
Defining value as a triadic axiom is not only epistemologically unsound
but philosophically deceptive. It's a metaphoric scheme invented by
Pirsig to circumvent the fundamental subject/object duality.
[Platt]:
Well, yes and no. It's invented by Pirsig, true. But not specifically with
the purpose of circumventing SOM. Rather, with the purpose of explaining
the world better than SOM can. So, your list of values falls neatly into
Pirsig's moral levels -- sensory (biological), rational (intellectual),
aesthetic (Dynamic), cultural (social plus intellectual), academic
(intellectual), culinary (biological), musical (Dynamic). Moral values, of
course, subsume all levels.
Even if Pirsig didn't postulate his triad of value levels as an SOM
alternative, how does such parsing of value functions help us understand the
world better? Are we not able to distinguish monetary values from
psycho-emotional values? Do we not know the difference between the market
value of a home and the aesthetic value of a Picasso painting? Or the value
of individual freedom as opposed to the tyranny of the state? What do the
labels "biological", "social", and "intellectual" add to this understanding?
The MOQ is clear in stating that higher levels depend for their existence
on the lower ones. As for judging a culture by it's intellect, wouldn't
you
agree that a culture that protects an individual's right to speak freely
(an intellectual value) is superior to one that doesn't? (A rhetorical
question no doubt.)
No, it's a legitimate value-related question. I don't view intellect as
"higher" or "lower" than biology. We need both to survive and flourish in a
civilized world. My concept of what is an individual's right in America is
obviously not in accord with what a follower of Islam believes is right in
his nation. Either of us may claim "intellect" as the final word for our
belief and behavior, but that doesn't resolve the problem because our
respective value systems are in conflict. The only way to change human
behavior is to change the values that motivate it. The history of mankind
has been shaped, not by intellect, but by the values most precious to human
beings. And, whether we call them "intellectual" or "rational", the social
values of a culture invariably influence the behavior of its people.
You and I have observed citizens of a nation that holds individual freedom
sacred disagreeing as to whether laissez-faire capitalism is more rational
or "intellectual" than state-sponsored socialism. One may argue that
"spreading the wealth" to achieve social equality is consistent with Kant's
Categorical Imperative, and is therefore a rational goal. You're getting
that argument thrown back at you with every comment you've posted in this
thread. What is morally superior to you and me by "intellectual standards"
is "white supremacy" or "racial bigotry" to Arlo and DM.
Since Intellect, like Value, is subjective, you won't win this argument by
preaching the domination of intellectual values from Pirsig's pulpit.
Anyway, I wish you and yours all the best in 2009.
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/
