From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 19:16:24 BST
Scott,
Scott said:
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.
Matt:
I would absolutely agree with you Scott that there is a tremendous amount of
ambiguity between the two senses of the S/O distinction in Pirsig's
thinking. I don't think, though, that Pirsig simply ignores the second set.
I would more like to say that he conflates the two meanings, for reasons I
think that have to do with the way the history of philosophy has conflated
them (beginning with, I think, Descartes). As far as I can tell, I think
what Pirsig was talking about in ZMM was primarily concerned with
subject[2]/object[2]. The S/O Dilemma Pirsig addresses in ZMM is framed in
terms that are more like subject[1]/object[1], but the consequences he draws
out, and his tracing of the problem to Plato's dialectic, are almost
entirely about the problems of subject[2]/object[2] (the problems,
specifically, in taking it too seriously). The movement of 20th century
thought has been to distinguish the two distinctions, and I'm not entirely
sure why Pirsig never really does this explicitly (to my knowledge).
If I understand Bo's SOL, he's saying that the S[2]/O[2] distinction is
basic to thinking. I would think this to be a little off. It seems to me
that a distinction between the center of consciousness and the object of its
attention is a special case of the more general ability of differentiation.
The S[2]/O[2] differentiates between you and what you're thinking about, but
you also need to differentiate between different objects, different possible
objects of attention, as in, "I'm thinking about X, and not Y or Z." The
general ability of differentiation seems to me to be basic to the Quality
thesis, and that's what I think would be basic to thinking, essentially
binary thinking. The point that Bo would have Pirsig tell us is that we
shouldn't make S[2]/O[2] into a metaphysics, that it is simply basic to how
we respond to the world. This, I think, is the same thing as saying that we
shouldn't be trying to do epistemology.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 - 19:20:02 BST