From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 01:47:17 BST
David M. noted September 25th:
I still recommend Tarnas’s “Passion of the West” to those who want to see
MOQ in its broader context, i.e. all the other critics of SOM, there have
been many, Pirsig himself recognises the significance of romanticism and
this connects to idealism and one of the world’s top philosophers Charles
Taylor says, there is a lot in these areas that is anti-subjectivist as well
as anti-objectivist, see his “Sources of the Self”.
Bo Skutvik stated September 23rd:
Pirsig does in fact says that what happened in Greece (explained in ZMM as
the emergence of SOM) was the emergence of the intellectual level.
“The Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level independently of the
Greeks during the Upanishadic period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C.
(These dates may…”
Here he says that the Greeks developed the intellectual LEVEL and if the
same event is described as SOM the fact emerges that Intellect is SOM. Isn’t
this enough?
Ant McWatt comments:
Bo, David M. and all at Number 9,
Firstly, let’s hope the formatting of my post will be a little less “Alice
in Wonderland” this time!
Anyway, keeping in mind what Owen Barfield puts forward in “Saving the
Appearances”, it seems that primitive human cultures were using logic and
the manipulation of symbols before the seeds of SOM arose with the Greeks.
This would point to SOM and MOQ intellect being different things.
Ant McWatt commented September 22nd:
>To cut to the chase, if SOM was the intellectual level of the MOQ then
>that would mean the MOQ itself is part of SOM or that the MOQ is a
>non-intellectual static pattern (such as a social one). Both options
>seem nonsensical to me.
Bo Skutvik replied September 23rd:
That the MOQ is “out of intellect”, “beyond intellect”, “non-intellectual”
is plain.
Ant McWatt comments:
I think this is one of the difficulties with this issue. You see I think
the complete reverse. It is as clear as day to me that the MOQ is an
intellectual pattern and not “out” or “beyond” it.
Bo Skutvik stated September 23rd:
According to my dictionary intellect is the ability to distinguish between
objectivity and subjectivity, and if that isn’t SOM …what is?
Ant McWatt comments:
As my PhD supervisor reminded me on more than one occasion, philosophy that
relies on standard dictionary definitions is usually bad philosophy. For
instance, regarding this issue, we are discussing what Pirsig defines as
“intellect” not what some writer of the Oxford Dictionary might think it is.
Bo Skutvik stated September 23rd:
Here is the misunderstanding (that I hoped to avoid with my addition about
subjectivity above) that the MOQ has any affinity for “the subject side”.
The MOQ reject’s the subject/object metaphysics wholesalely. Can’t you get
this into your collective heads?
Ant McWatt comments:
The MOQ doesn’t reject SOM wholesale but includes it completely in a broader
metaphysical map. This is what SOM philosophers in the academic world often
fail to get. It is this broader metaphysical “value” map that allows Pirsig
to dissolve SOM’s metaphysical problems (such as the mind-matter problem)
wholesale. (For instance, see Chapter 3 of my PhD to see an MOQ solution to
various SOM problems).
Bo Skutvik asserted September 23rd:
The logical consequences are most dire for “orthodoxy”. The MOQ as an
intellectual pattern means that the whole is to be contained inside a
sub-set of a sub-set of itself. It violates the container analogy that
Pirsig speaks of, while the SOL says that the MOQ is (contained in/by)
itself which is allowed logically.
Ant McWatt comments:
I think to clarify this issue it has to be remembered that the MOQ is a
metaphysical map that refers to reality as a whole. A part of reality
consists of maps. As such, a map of all of reality (such as the MOQ) must
also have a reference to itself or else it isn’t a map of ALL of reality.
If you remember that the MOQ includes reference to Dynamic Quality (and
realise, for instance, that an individual copy of LILA doesn’t literally
contain Dynamic Quality as a whole) you can see that the MOQ's intellectual
level must include a reference to the MOQ (as a metaphysical map of
everything).
A helpful text to distinguish this difference (of metaphysical maps and
reality itself) is the “Guidebook to ZMM” by Ronald Di Santo and Thomas
Steele. Their discussion of metaphysical maps is given near the beginning.
Finally, as noted in Chapter 2 of my PhD, there are also two different (if
closely related) versions of SOM referred to in LILA. However, the exact
differences of these are for another debate.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
“Well! I’ve often seen an SOM without an MOQ,” thought Alice; “but an MOQ in
an SOM! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!”
(Apologies to Lewis Carroll and the Cheshire Cat).
.
_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
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 -
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 Sep 26 2005 - 02:07:46 BST