From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Oct 06 2004 - 18:57:21 BST
Ham et al,
> The forum has lately narrowed to metaphysical issues concerning the Fourth
> Level of SQ, or what most of us commoners better understand as the nature
> and derivation of Intellect. Although Intellect is universally defined as
> the capacity for knowledge or rational thought, it is clear that the MOQ
> holds a much broader definition that embraces consciousness, cognizant
> sensibility, and will. Confusion still abounds, as is evident from this
> recent exchange between Mel and Scott.
It is not clear "that the MOQ holds a much broader definition [of
intellect] that embraces consciousness, cognizant sensibility, and will".
Pirsig did not define intellect in Lila, and in subsequent writing, gave a
definition of "manipulation of abstract symbols". To say that that embraces
"consciousness, cognizant sensibility, and will" is dubious. These embraced
notions have no defined place in the MOQ that I know of.
[Ham:] I'd like to make a few final points about our differences that I
think most
> philosophers would agree on. They are interspersed in the quotes of Mel
and
> Scott and are offered in the spirit of clarification rather than to pedal
my
> own metaphysical thesis.
[Scott:] Which nevertheless gets peddled, but nevermind. I only want to
respond to a couple of things:
>
> 2. What we call Quality is a comparative attribute that presupposes a
> self/other dualism (SOM). [Thus, Mel is right in suggesting that Quality
is
> an attribute of being; but as being is an intellectual creation of man,
this
> concept
> denies Quality the godhead status MOQ's author would like it to have. On
> the other hand, if, as Scott suggests, Pirsig were to define being as a
> "product of Quality" it would make no sense in any philosophical context.]
You insist on using your definition of Quality here. Philosophy, however,
is all about changing definitions of key terms. Pirsig is creating a new
philosophical context. There is no such thing as what Quality (or Value, or
Essence, or Intellect) "really is". Different philosophies are different
according to the way these terms are used. That goes for the words
'reality' and 'truth' as well.
> [Scott:]
> > Because I consider intellect to be irreducible, that is, it is not
> > something that can be developed from a universe that did not contain it.
> > Instead, I agree with those pre-SOM philosophies that regarded human
> > intellect as a degraded and limited form of divine intellect, which
latter
> > is what drives the evolutionary process. (There are, to be sure, huge
> > adjustments that need to be made to the pre-SOM philosophies, not least
of
> > which is to include evolution, but also to avoid an overly-theistic
> > picture.)
>
[Ham:]> I don't know what Scott considers "overly theistic", except in the
sense of
> "political correctness'' to which philosophy should never have to stoop.
> However, he is correct in his conception of the intellect as irreducible.
> But it is also individual:
To be overly theistic is to infer from the notion that evolution is an
intellectual process, that there is an Intellect that is omniscient,
omnipotent, perfect, and other than its creation. I reject that conception
of Intellect, holding that there is plenty of room in the evolutionary
process for error and feedback.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 06 2004 - 20:59:08 BST