Greetings on the New Year, Platt --
We may have a meaning disparity. "Categorizing" to me means the
same as "differentiating" or simply "dividing" without which intellect
cannot function.
Categorizing to me means "classifying experience". It is an intellectual
process of the cognizant human being. The "divide" Bo and I refer to is
metaphysical -- primary and beyond experience. It creates the dichotomy
Sensibility/Otherness from which value-sensibility is born as the
experiential agent.
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."
Actually, I did not say
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/
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/
