From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 08:50:56 BST
Hi Scott
31 Aug. you wrote:
Bo previously:
> > ...if my sorting out of (your meaning) of where Pirsig "goes wrong"
> > is correct I hope you say that the S/O divide is of "high quality"
> > and the SOM is not. But we obviously don't see the same SOL. The
> > "self different from non-self" is so primary that I cant understand
> > your using it in this context. Even the proverbial amoeba knows that
> I disagree. I assume the amoeba is not self-conscious. It doesn't know
> that its food is not itself. It is our intellect that observes the
> distinction between the amoeba and its food.
First of all, what has quality, the SOM or the S/O divide? I was not
able to make that out?
Let's drop the self-conscious part for a while. "The intellect observing
the difference ...etc? Don't you think that humankind - before Q-
intellect - knew the difference between an animal and it's food - even
by words? And at the biological level the amoeba is as good at
discerning what is good and bad as our own bodies. The stomach
does not digest itself :-D
Bo again:
> > , while the
> > ability to look objectively upon things - the sceptical enquirer so
> > to say - had his birth when the old Greek thinkers started to look
> > for a permancy beyond the myths. I agree with the SO ...M as a post-
> > cartian development, but its cornerstone was laid by the Greeks.
> > Maybe your "things independent of me" is meant in this capacity and
> > not in the biological me/not me sense ...hopefully?
Scott:
> Yes. And it (the S/O/divide) marks the intellectual level, in that it
> is only when people started thinking of themselves as the thinkers
> that we have intellect separated from the social.
We agree about the S/O intellect then? But I am not sure it took this
...hey I am a thinker! ..form (the Cartesian SOM) rather that (by me)
above.
Scott earlier:
> > > This is why I say that the S/O divide should be seen as a case of
> > > the DQ/SQ divide.
Bo:
> > The subjective part of the SOM = DQ and the objective part = SQ
> > makes the MOQ into some Squonktailian rubbish that there are
> > thirteen to a dozen of these days ....even worse than making the
> > MOQ - DQ included - a STATIC intellectual pattern.
> I don't get this. Who is claiming that "the subjective part of the SOM
> = DQ", etc.?
You, if you want the S/O to be "..a case of the DQ/SQ divide". The S
must necessarily correspond with the D ...what else?
Scott earlier:
> > > It's too ingrained in us to be called a *static* pattern
> > > of value.
Bo:
> > I see your point here, but it's the fallacy of mixing the biological
> > self/not self into the subject/object divide.
> See above why they are not mixed.
Well ....I'm not convinced ;-)
Scott earlier:
> > > Instead it is how the DQ/SQ divide takes form when we think,
> > > perceive, feel, and act, in our current stage of consciousness.
Bo:
> > Rather how reality is perceived from the curent intellectual stage.
> > At the biological stage we perceive by senses, at the social stage
> > we perceive by feelings (emotions) and at the intellect we perceive
> > by reason . "Consciousness"? We haven't reached that stage yet dear
> > Scott :-)
> We are self-conscious.
Conscious as different from oblivious I acknowledge, but self-
conscious - along with "awareness" - I regard as arch-somish,
incompatible with the MOQ when we talk metaphysics ...as we
notoriously do.
First my little act: All creatures sleep so they must necessarily wake
up to a state different from sleep, this is impossible to come to grips
with from SOM even if one tries all kinds of subtle kinds of awareness
("slumber" the good old naturalists called the animal reality)
> Because of that, the way we perceive by senses
> is not the way animals or plants perceive by senses.
As an organism we perceive the same way as all other creatures, but
social perception changes/influences better it because the focus
changes, but all this you know.
> Not that I know
> how they do, but I think being self-conscious is going to change
> everything all the way down. But I think that i
s a different topic.
It's very much part of the development because intellectual perception
(your "self-consciousness") in turn changes/influences the lower
perceptions, but it's the one directly below which is its main concern.
Social perception became the dreaded emotional, superstitious,
"subjective" mess that intellect must protect existence against ...and
IS a bolster against ... while biology receded into the "objective" realm
along with matter.
In turn Quality perception will change/influence intellectual perception,
but that's another topic.
Sincerely
Bo
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 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 08:51:52 BST