From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 15:51:55 BST
Platt, Wim, Ham, et al,
Before one can evaluate Bo's SOL, a fundamental logical error in the MOQ
needs to be addressed. That error is to ignore two different meanings of the
word pair: subject and object. One meaning is to equate 'subject' with
'mind' and 'object' with 'matter', which I'll call subject[1]/object[1]. The
other meaning (which I'll call subject[2]/object[2]), covers the X and Y
respectively in sentences like "X is aware of Y" or "X thinks about "Y", or
"X values Y". The MOQ dissolves the opposition between subject[1] and
object[1] by calling each different levels of static patterns of value. This
makes a certain amount of sense, but does nothing to dissolve the opposition
between subject[2] and object[2]. This latter opposition is simply ignored
by the MOQ, which makes the MOQ inadequate as a metaphysics. I've raised
this issue several times, but no MOQ defender has dealt with it.
The reason it needs to be dealt with is that Bo's SOL is talking about
subject[2]/object[2], not subject[1]/object[1]. This can be seen easily
enough when the object of thought is another thought. Bo is essentially
correct when he says of human intellect that its value is in the S/O divide,
when that is taken to mean the S[2]/O[2] divide. (I disagree with him in
that I don't think this value in the divide only occurs in human
intellect -- I would say that all value occurs in an
Intellectual/Quality/Consciousness divide, also known as contradictory
identity -- but that is a separate discussion). So the fourth level consists
of this divide occurring in physical beings, known as humans. For a an
extensive discussion of the value of the S[2]/O[2] divide, see Barfield's
"Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry".
Pirsig responded (in LC) to Bo's general drift by noting that certain
intellectual acts are not S/O, in particular mathematics. Here again, not
making the distinction between [1] and [2] muddies the discussion. If I am
thinking about rocks, then the object of thought is O[1] and O[2], but if I
am thinking about the Pythagorean theorem , then the object of thought is
only O[2]. But there is a further complication in that the Pythagorean
theorem only becomes O[2] after I have thought about it. That is, during the
thinking, there is no "thinking about", there is just the thinking. So
during the mathematical thinking, Pirsig is right that there is no S/O
divide -- the thought is the object of thought, but this can only be
discerned when reflecting on the thought, and reflection is S[2]/O[2].
Nevertheless, can one say that mathematical thinking is a transcendence of
S[2]/O[2]? Perhaps. What is the case is that in a certain sense all good
thinking is mathematical. If I am thinking as a scientist about rocks, what
I am doing is working with concepts, not particular rocks. An experiment
with rocks is a testing of the concepts. But, again, this is leading into
other issues. But the point is that without a correction to the MOQ such as
SOL, there is no way to address them. And one also needs to keep the
distinction between the two meanings of S/O in mind.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: MD Bolstering Bo's SOL
Dear Platt,
You
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:24 PM
> Great to hear from you.
Yes, I know I've got friends in cyberspace, but I've got a lot of other
things on my mind these days, mostly connected to a new and highly
stimulating job.
As you expressed interest in the results of the Dutch referendum on the EU
'constitution': according to preliminary (but probably quite accurate)
outcomes 63% of the 62% of potential voters that turned up voted 'no' (37%
voted 'yes', 38% didn't turn up) despite some 90% of the politicians having
campaigned for 'yes' (only the extreme right and the extreme left campaigned
for 'no')... All these 3 figures are exceptional by Dutch standards in the
realm of European elections.
'No' voters apparently wanted to express a lot of negative feelings against
politics in general, against not being involved in politics in general and
the European project in particular. 'Nationalism' is not the right word. A
'nationalist Dutchman' is something like a contradiction in terms. That
seems to be the same kind of sentiment that was expressed by the LPF-voters
(the party of the murdered Pim Fortuyn) in 2002. It is not so much 'backward
thinking' that politicians in general (not only 'the left'; hardly any
politician in the Netherlands would want to be called 'nationalist') have to
come to terms with. It is voters who don't want to (are not able to?) dig
into real argumentation for different options for the future of their
society and nevertheless have strong feelings about the politicians who
sometimes do and sometimes are just busy 'selling' themselves in every way
that helps their ego's.
> I think Bo's point is that subject-object thinking dominates the
> intellectual level and thus defines it.
Do YOU consider that a proper way of defining something? Is life defined by
bacteria that dominate bio-mass??
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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
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 : Thu Jun 02 2005 - 15:58:34 BST