On Jul 25, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > > Mary, Krimel, All -- > > > [Mary]: >> Arlo and dmb are struggling with a set of platypi below due to an >> incorrect definition of the Intellectual Level. The unsolvable questions >> they are asking can be dissolved if it is understood that the Intellectual >> Level is not brains, smarts, intellect, or degree of intelligence. Nor is it >> a bucket where you put thoughts, premises, ideas, or 'thinking itself'. >> If instead of this, you define the Intellectual Level as a pattern of values >> which value subject-object logic and deny the primacy of value in the >> Universe, then all these questions go away, or become moot, or are >> solved, etc. > > [Krimel]: >> A "level" is not a pattern. It is a collection of patterns of a similar >> type. It is a tool for organizing and thinking about patterns. Defining it >> as merely a definition that makes your problems go away is about as >> foolish as Ham positing an uncreated source as a solution to ex nihilo fit. >> It would be like claiming that Quality is defined as THE solution to every >> problem. You name the problem and the solution is: Quality; well >> Quality or 42 depending on your level of math anxiety. > > It may be a point of little significance to Pirsigians, and my comment will > be taken as self-serving. Nonetheless, I ask you to consider what is really > "foolish" here. > > I don't know which is fraught with more problems: positing Intellect as an > outgrowth of the Social Level that occurred at the time of the Babylonians, > or abstracting it as an eternal domain containing all conceptual patterns. > Mary has offered an explanation of this so-called "level" (I would call it > "reason") that not only accommodates Pirsig's Quality hierarchy but that > would appear to resolve the "primacy issue" as well. > > In her effort to be concise, Mary fell prey to a non-sequitor definition: "a > pattern of values which value > subject-object logic." Obviously values don't value, even as "patterns".
Greetings Ham, (Please pardon me if I'm incorrect May.) Isn't this just a linguistic slip? Wouldn't it be that she meant 'the intellectual level is a collection of patterns that value subject-objet logic, and reject the primacy of value (subjective) in the Universe'? Marsha > But Krimmel, who was quick to criticize her explanation, committed a similar > error when asserting that "Defining it as ...a definition is about as foolish > as Ham positing an uncreated source as a solution to ex nihilo fit." > > Leaving aside the promise of "solving ALL problems", one problem philosophers > with intellectual integrity historically acknowledge is expressed by the > metaphysical principle: 'Ex nihilo nihil fit' [Nothing is created by > nothing]. Now, I don't know how Krimmel would resolve this paradox, nor do I > claim that it's "THE solution to every problem," but I know of no other > solution to THIS fundamental problem than an "uncreated source". > > Like Pirsig's DQ, the concept of an uncreated source is more than "merely a > definition". It is the most logical and plausible answer to the age-old > problem of infinite regression. The fact that Krimmel, whom I regard as a > true intellectual, has again chosen to attack this concept actually gives me > a sense of satisfaction. I only wish that he and the other intellectuals > here--Babylonian or otherwise--could expand their mental capacity > sufficiently to understand and appreciate that there is but ONE METAPHYSICAL > level. > > As Richard Schain phrased it in his essay on 'The Problem of Existence' . . . > > "The placement of the problem of human existence on a metaphysical level is > dismissed out of hand because science does not accept the metaphysical as a > valid category of knowledge. These types may be labeled as 'materialists of > the mind' since their one article of faith is that all phenomena, mental or > otherwise, are ultimately material in nature and subject to analytic > investigation. ... > > "The 'solution' to the metaphysical problem of existence is to be found in > the values arising within the conscious mind, not in the analysis of the > latter's nature. The antique Greeks are still our models in philosophy > because they were concerned with values, not with analysis of the structure > of the mind, which was always a secondary consideration with them. The human > condition requires a value-rich metaphysics, without which human beings are > merely an out-of-control animal species, on the verge of destroying the > milieu in which they live." > > For anyone interested, Dr. Shain's insightful essay appears in its entirety > on my Values Page all this week at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm . > > Essentially speaking, > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
