Greetings on the New Year, Platt --
[Please ignore the previous post. I pushed the 'send' button before
completing it.]
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" that 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 the 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."
I also wrote that "we sense value incrementally, by degree, and we are
always aware of it as something else."
Do you think our "intellect" is something else? It's neither a "thing" nor
an "other" but the very process of formulating differentiated existence from
the Value of Essence.
I think Pirsig would agree that "all experience is value-based," but would
disagree that it is intellectually differentiated. Rather, value
experience
precedes intellectualization.
We are not cognizant of "pure" Value or Absolute Essence, but only realize
it as relational experience. This is why human beings have no direct
knowledge of the Absolute. What is recalled by the individual as
"experience" is intellectually differentiated by the brain and nervous
system. Even Pirsig's simplistic "sitting on a hot stove" analogy localizes
the experience to pain in the butt area (i.e., is differentiated
sensibility). Pure, undifferentiated value sensibility is the 'psyche' or
subjective "I" itself. It is primary to intellectual cognizance and cannot
be defined in relational terms.
[Ham, previously]:
I don't view intellect as "higher" or "lower" than biology.
We need both to survive and flourish in a civilized world.
[Platt]:
No doubt. But, I would prefer to be a human than a germ.
Of course you would. You are a human being by "preference" of the Creator,
which is non-voluntary on your part.
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.
The Saria law of Islam is the intellectual equivalent of the moral code of
the Western World. Both apply to societal relations. Artifically reducing
the former to a "social level", as if to distinguish religion from
intellection is a meaningless exercise. The conflict has nothing to do with
levels. It stems from the Muslim's belief in (i.e., value of) the supremacy
of Divine Law as taught by a prophet, whereas free people value the sanctity
of human life irrespective of religious authority. Martyrdom, xenophobia
and genocide are offensive to those who value human life, and are therefore
not sanctioned by Western Society.
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.
Winning arguments is impossible. Preaching is often offensive. But, having
conversations with you is always a pleasure.
Same here, Platt. And enjoy the weekend.
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/
