From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Feb 16 2004 - 09:12:22 GMT
Matthew P K. and Group
13 Feb. Matt wrote:
> Bo said:
> Now, in ZMM it was Phaedrus' frustration over SOM that triggered his
> Quality insight, thus the big question is: Was there - are there - an
> Hindu "SOM" that could have caused Oriental Phaedrus to create a
> Metaphysics of Rta?. In his letter Pirsig speaks of an Oriental
> intellectual level arrived at at the Upanisadic times (1500-500 BC)
> which is definitely later than the said Myth era.
> Paul said:
> Here is where your SOLAQI interpretation forces you to go wrong.
> Because, to you, the intellectual level = S/O, when Pirsig, in his
> letter, says that, "the Oriental cultures developed an intellectual
> level independently of the Greeks during the Upanishadic period of
> India.." you are forced to look for an Oriental version of the search
> for "objective truth." But this didn't happen the way it did with the
> ancient Greeks.
> Matt:
> This is ultimately the line of thinking that I find persuasive in
> knocking down most of Bo's claim. There are two options: either you
> make the S/O distinction so ubiquitous that it becomes synonymous with
> thinking, or you are forced down the road of reading Eastern
> philosophy as attempting the same thing as Western philosophy.
"Philosophy" is a bit "wide", but OK.
> I
> think this tends to get Eastern philosophy wrong. What this further
> forces Bo to claim, as far as I can see, is that Eastern philosophy
> (and culture) is much, much further behind than Western because Bo's
> further claim after the Solaqi interpretation is that the MoQ is a
> fifth level above and beyond the intellectual level.
I have called it a 5th level and a "rebel 4th", but it has not
reached its final form yet. What is for sure is that the MOQ can't
be part of its own the static realm.
> If this were
> true, that would mean that Eastern philosophy never went through the
> fourth step of the dialectical progression of social-intellectual-MoQ
> that Bo has set up (iff he can't read Western problems into Eastern
> philosophy).
I would have said that the Eastern Culture never went trough the
fourth stage ....etc." The same goes for "reading Western
problems into Eastern philosophy" where I try to read the MOQ
into all cultures. Anyway it is the thought-intellect that makes it
sound degrading, as if pre-intellct means mute beasts .
> So, I see this line as very bad for Bo's claim because A) he has to
> search for Western elements in the East (which I consider to be
> misleading)
If there was an Oriental intellect it would have to be S/O, I can't
for the life of me understand what the static intellectual level is
other than that? Maybe you don't buy the MOQ terminology at all,
but do you have an inkling what intellectual means?
> and B) if the West really were one step (let alone two)
> ahead of the East, there would be such a noticable gap between the two
> halves of the world it would be analogous to comparing gorillas and
> rocks.
You seem to fall all the way back on the INTELLIGENCE
definition of intellect. IMO pre-S/O-intellect individuals were a
smart as the latter day kind. They calculated the movements of
heavenly bodies and constructed great buildings and empires. It's
the mind-intellecters that slanders the social era.
> What I will concede is that there are persuasive ways of mitigating
> both A and B (providing the missing (persuasive) narrative of finding
> the West in the East without misreading the East and arguing that the
> relevant levels are still young and my analogy would only make sense
> given a fuller expanse of time).
It sounds promising, but could you be a bit more specific?
> However, what I still find
> unpersuasive is that the MoQ is a fifth level.
Remember Scott? His claim was that awareness was beyond
intellect, this may be the Dynamic aspect of existence ... always
beyond its last static stage. Back in the the 3rd level era
awareness meant a "subject different from the word", now as
existence IS at the 4th. level, awareness has gone on to a
"quality" awareness. Just a hunch.
> Given claims of
> distinctness, I still don't see how one can claim that the MoQ is
> radically different from other metaphysics. Given a "still too young
> to see it" claim, I would still argue that it would be unreasonable
> and premature, then, to claim distinctness for the MoQ if its still
> too early to see the signs.
This is too big a question to be argued about here.
> What I think the kernel of truth is in Bo's interpretation of Pirsig
> is that S/O thinking, i.e. binary thinking, is what is distinctive
> about the intellectual level, i.e. I take the first option I outlined
> originally above.
Kernel? These things are all or nothing at all. What else can
intellect be than "binary thinking"? However there is a view from
within intellect and from the Q-level. I maintain that intellect is
blind to any movement beyond: It sees existence through its
mind/matter grid, but seen as one of its own STATIC LEVELS the
MOQ treats it as the value of objective over subjective. Notice
how Pirsig when he talks about intellect invariably talks about
SCIENCE ...the essence of objectivity ...or otherwise when
describing intellects social impact, mentions democracy, free
press and speech, trial by jury ...etc. All signifying OBJECTIVITY.
Only when pressed to DEFINE intellect he lapses back to
intellects own view of mental activity, of manipulating symbols
...etc.
> I don't know how you think without adding
> distinctions to the undifferentiated mass of experience, without the
> kind of "objectifying gaze" that Sartre talked about. What Bo's
> formulation highlights as the problem is adding the -M, of
> hypostatizing S/O thinking, of taking Sartre and Kant's problem too
> seriously.
Yes, that's exactly it, but Sartre - even Kant - are late in this
context.
> I would concede to metaphysicians and SOMists that the
> Subject/Object divide is a "deep" condition of humanity, iff we don't
> take deepness seriously. If we don't take it seriously, as the
> pragmatists counsel, we wouldn't see it as a problem, as something to
> feel terrible angst about.
Hmm ... but can the SOM be treated as a "deep condition"
without going all the way down? David M. claims that he and
Heidegger has gone past the SOM, but I maintain that there was
no SOM until the MOQ. Nobody can go beyond anything before
it is outlined. To transcend the S/O has been a religious mystical
pastime till now - not a philosophical one.
IMO
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 : Mon Feb 16 2004 - 09:14:23 GMT