Re: MF Discussion Topic for February 2004

From: David MOREY (
Date: Mon Feb 09 2004 - 19:12:50 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MF Discussion Topic for February 2004"

    Bo said:I just wonder what people see as its central "value" if taking
    > intellect down a peg means "smashing" the MOQ. I fear that the
    > answer is that intellect is their holy grail ...consciousness, MIND,
    > where everything resides, and DYNAMIC most of all. This is
    > somish to the core and what I have protested always. Intellect is
    > the highest static value, yet static with a limited capacity and as
    > blind to any movement above itself as the rest of the levels.

    DM: Hi Bo, still trying to grasp what your position is....
    Please tell me what you agree/disagree with below:
    Now SOM has a long and evolving history from Greeks via Descartes to modern materialism (i.e. SOM
    with a less and less visible subject). And it has produced a great deal of valuable knowledge up to
    the point where it now seems to be a metaphysics creating unnecessary limits and problems, despite
    still having some capacity to deliver more knowledge. Pirsig proposes we adopt a quality matephysics
    instead with a different SQ/DQ divide where we recognise the underlying union of the two in
    Quality. This different divide enables us to look at all those aspects of SQ that under SOM would
    fall into the subject and be ignored. It also enables us to open up a clear site where DQ is active
    in its pretty undefinable way, allowing us to recognise DQ and not think we can describe a total
    world of
    objects and nothing but material objects. Now this SQ/DQ devide has no effect on science/knowledge
    as Pirsig says, we just get a different conception of what we mean by causality and objects. So Bo
    where is the value of SO divide here, do we need it?
    I think it has had a great historic value and influence (up to here I think I agree with you) but is
    now superseded by MOQ. In the MOQ the subject-object distinction melts away, everything falls into
    our different level patterns inorganic, organic, social structures, structures within the
    individual, cultural structures, etc. As you can see I think we need more level complexity than
    Pirsig suggests but I do not think that is a big deal, just getting ontological levels going is the
    really important thing. Over to you Bo.....If you are going to tell me that I am washing away some
    great value in the SI divide, I don't see it. Tell me what I am losing, why I should be concerned.

    David M

    [Note from moderator- I've chopped off the automatic copying in of the previous post. Shout if you
    object! - Sam]

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MF Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 10 2004 - 12:21:42 GMT