From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 21:05:31 BST
Bo,
--- OK, ZMM's SOM=LILA's intellectual level Pirsig never affirms,
--- but the evidence is overwhelming. He sometimes speaks about
--- an intellect per se, but it never takes off and when railing against
--- science he is really railing against intellect's objective half. And
--- here is the source of all ills. The MOQ rejects SOM, but in LILA
--- it's only its "objective over subjective" component which is
--- attacked, its "subjective over objective" part is almost forgotten.
--- Had Pirsig stressed this the SOL would have been superfluous.
Paul: It is the epistemological use of the terms subjective and objective
that Pirsig dispenses with i.e., they are no good for describing types of
knowledge. So both "objective over subjective" and "subjective over
objective" become epistemologically meaningless at the same time. This
dismantles the appearance/reality distinction which underlies all forms of
SOM, so with it goes the bad metaphysical side. The subject/object
distinction then serves to usefully and broadly distinguish between
different types of static values we may describe but does nothing whatsoever
to suggest any differences in proximity to "reality."
So what could it possibly mean to bemoan that, according to the "standard
MOQ," one's ideas are mental and subjective? That would be like bemoaning
that, according to the "standard MOQ," all rocks are physically hard
objects.
Regards
Paul
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 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 21:09:35 BST