Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:32:01 +0100
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:34:17 -0500 (EST) Donald T Palmgren
<lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu> wrote:
> There are people w/ "goofier" metaphysical notions than
> P around this universities department and I bet Anthony
> could name one or two where he is as well,
I sure could.
Donny,
You also mention "Process Philosophy" in an earlier
e-mail...
> Something else that might interest you is "Process
> Philosophy." I don't know much about it (maybe Anthony
> might?), but the bottom line is that what really exists
> is not a thing but a process, the universe is
> flux, a movement (presumably towards something). I
> believe Alfred North Whitehead is the big guy in this
> camp (this -ism).
I've never read Whitehead either though from the times
I`ve heard him mentioned in the Department, he seems to
be on similar lines to Buddhist philosophy and Pirsig. He
is also mentioned in LILA. From what you`ve written here
it seems that the MOQ could be said to be a type of process
philosophy in the sense that the universe is a flux and a
movement towards something better. I will ask a few of the
Department`s tutors whether they`ve heard of it and come
back to you if anyone has.
> We forget that Aristotle's *Nichomacheian Ethics* is
> part 1 of a two part work on Politics. For Aristotle the
> moral unit isn't the individual, it's the polis -- the
> city-state. The "subject" here is most certainly not an
> internal psyche; it's a society.
That`s an interesting point I did not know before.
> P never escaped the Church. He just set up a new
> denomination. What the church is, is this need to pick
> an -ism, make it a war cry -- select an enemy [the
> SOMites] and dig in to the trenches. I've said before, I
> find that mentality unphilosophical and undignified.
> It's the result of trying to force-fit philosophy into
> an academic setting. More later.
I see your point here Donny but the introduction of a
mystic element in Pirsig`s MOQ sets it outside the Church
of Reason. You could say, uncharitably, that Pirsig has
set-up a new church - the "Church of Reason and Intuition".
However, I think this is uncharitable as Pirsig`s MOQ seems
to be aimed more towards individuals changing things
(in their everyday lives) by using the MOQ rather than
institutions employing it on a wider "political" level.
> Now thats where one might find "subjective" and
> "objective." What about this idea of the
> (knowing) subject and (known)object. In ZMM P is clear
> that experience is the result of the bumping together of
> subject and object.
NO! That is to fundamentally misunderstand ZMM. EXPERIENCE
CREATES SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS. Subjects and objects are
derivations from Experience; not the other way round.
> Pirsig: (ZMM) Out of Quality come forth S and O
> (Approximatly meaning Mind-Body) and experience is the
> result of a S and an O encountering one-another. But
> Quality is not *in* exp. for it, after all, gives rise
> *to* exp. (LILA)
QUALITY IS EXPERIENCE. EXPERIENCE IS QUALITY.
> P sheds his Eastern flavor and says:
> What really exists is *only* Quality.
Sorry to correct you again Donny but he certainly doesn`t
shed his Eastern flavour in LILA. In the latter part of
this he clearly states that "Dharma" is an Eastern term for
Quality.
> It has two states (these are my own words): the
> potential and the realized (the in-itself and the
> for-itself in Hegelian lingo). As his diagram in the
> Einstein-Magreet artical shows (on the LS web page) he
> identifies inorganic, and organic SPoV as "objects" and
> social and intellectual SPoV as "subjects," saying that
> these insubstantial things are a higher form of value
> evolution than the spacialy-extended, solid "stuff."
Two points here, "space" is an SOM construct; it is simply
a useful fiction. Secondly, subjects and objects are only
analogous to the static patterns in the MOQ (for instance,
there`s no evolutionary link between subjects and objects
and very often no recognition of continual change within
the SOM theories). Moreover, Bodvar has said to me
previously, that Pirsig only equated subjects & objects
with static intellectual patterns for his Einstein-Magritte
paper so as not to alienate his audience in Belgium too
much. He certainly does not believe they are literally
equivalent.
On Thurs, 12 Mar 1998, Magnus Berg wrote:
> Any SPoV can be subject or object in any experience
> (Quality Event).
>From the MOQ point of view there are no such things as
subjects or objects.
Magnus goes on to say:
> There must still be a subject in the
> Quality Event of two colliding atoms. Both atoms are not
> objects. Both atoms are subjects from it's point of
> view. On the other hand, when you hear a new idea (an
> intellectual SPoV), you probably consider yourself to be
> the subject and the idea to be the object, right?
Wrong. What you`ve written here Magnus is a very good
example of looking at the MOQ from within the SOM prison.
This is not to say it is easy for anyone, including myself,
brought up using subjects and objects, to break out of it.
In the above passage, from the MOQ point-of-view (and
remember this is the system we are trying to establish here
not some type of SOM from which your comments are derived)
the atoms, "You" and the new "Idea" are the following:
1. Both the colliding atoms are inorganic static patterns
of Value,
2. "You" are a collection of inorganic, organic, social and
intellectual static patterns of Value and
3. The "idea" is an intellectual static pattern of
value. (Moreover, keep in mind that there has to be
another person, directly or indirectly, where this new
idea comes from, it just doesn`t appear in thin air out
on its own.
Doug makes the related point "that in classical SOM
science assumes, objectively, that an object
may be isolated from its environment (while) ...MoQ shows
us that static patterns of value (SPoVs) are co-within
Dynamic Quality. SPoVs are inseparable from: DQ and other
SPoVs in DQ".
This is worth repeating in conjunction with what I`ve
written above as the SOM myth (which you are perpetuating)
that an observer may objectively observe an object in
isolation has to be laid to rest before you can
understand the MOQ properly.
Magnus finally ends with:
> Another thing, it's really only inorganic patterns that
> are spatially extended. All other patterns are spatially
> extended only due to their inorganic representation, the
> dependency.
As I said to Donny above space can be a convenient
intellectual construct; whether or not anything actually is
EXTENDED will never be known.
On Thurs, 12 Mar 1998, Platt Holden wrote:
> From the beginning of the LS, Bo has maintained that the
> Intellectual level is SOM (rationality, language,
> science). It's gradually seeped into my mind that Bo is
> right about this. SOM is the current mental framework
> and means of communication in which we operate from day
> to day, enabling us to "make a living" and enjoy "the
> good life."
Again, following the paragraphs I`ve written above:
1. There is no direct correlation between subjects &
objects with static value patterns.
2. One of the main tenets of the MOQ is to replace SOM.
There is no need to re-introduce subjects and objects
within the MOQ and to do so will eventually lead to the
re-emergence of all those SOM problems Pirsig seeked to
avoid/solve with his metaphysics in the first place.
On Thurs, 12 Mar 1998, Ken Clark wrote:
> The MOQ (in my mind) has existed since the beginning. The
> question of whether it existed before the Big Bang or came after is
> something I am not prepared to hazard a guess on. That would make a great
> deal of difference
On Thurs, 12 Mar 1998, Donny replied:
> What? A metaphysical theory has existed from the
> begining? How could that be? A theory is something used
> to explain a phenomina, or to answer a question. Can you
> have a theory w/o having anybody around to do the
> questioning or the theorizing or even to experience the
> phenoumina?
Too right Donny. Ken, wake-up!!! The thought of this
one-mile rock hitting the Earth is obviously doing things
to your mind. Re-read chapter three in ZMM where Pirsig
mentions the theory of gravity.
Sorry to everyone whom I`ve been a bit curt to in this
e-mail but I`m just trying to keep us on the straight and
narrow as far as the MOQ goes. Despite my criticisms I
have enjoyed reading all the post mentioned.
Speak to you soon,
Anthony.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST