Happy New Year Ham, Platt previously: > > I don't know what's "problematic" about intellectual. > > Isn't your Philosophy of Essence intellectual? > > Does it not categorize?
Ham: > No, not really, unless "categorizing" is thought to include the primary > division of Self and Other. We may have a meaning disparity. "Categorizing" to me means the same as "differentiating" or simply "dividing" without which intellect cannot function. > 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. To quote from your book, "Seizing the Essence," p.77: " . . . the Essentialist realizes Absolute Source in the value of existence. Now, if that sounds like I´m suggesting that everything is value, in a metaphysical sense, I am, as I shall presently explain." I assume "intellect" fits into the category of "everything." > 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. I think Pirsig would agree that "all experience is value-based," but would disagree that it is intellectually differentiated. Rather, value experience precedes intellectualization. > [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? Answer: That the value levels compete with one another for dominance, accounting for all kinds of natural and human conflicts. Platt previously: > > 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.) Ham: > 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. No doubt. But, I would prefer to be a human than a germ > 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. Seems to me that free speech is essential to create and preserve intellectual values. Incidentally, as suggested above, the reason our value system and the Islam system are in conflict is explained by Pirsig as a conflict of value levels -- intellectual vs. social. > 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. Pirsig settled the argument about socialism vs. free markets in favor of free markets. That some here may disagree is their problem, not the MOQ´s. As you´ve noticed, ivory-towered left-wing radicals tend to go berserk when challenged. > Since Intellect, like Value, is subjective, you won't win this argument by > preaching the domination of intellectual values from Pirsig's pulpit. Winning arguments is impossible. Preaching is often offensive. But, having conversations with you is always a pleasure. Warm regards, 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/
