Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Fri, 1 May 1998 05:15:37 +0100
Brett!
Welcome to the Squad, and thanks for your opening message where you
among other things wrote:
> I definitely have to go with "self and not-self" here. First of all,
> dualism in general seems to refer to any way of theoretically dividing
> reality into two components, such as chaos vs. order, good vs. evil, and
> so on. Subject vs. object is just another way of dividing it. Now, at
> first I thought self vs. not-self was simply a subset of SO dualism, but
> as I thought more, I realized I couldn't come up with a form of SO
> dualism which was not fundamentally self vs. not-self. The idea, of
> course, is that the self can observe and understand the not-self if it
> tries hard enough; the underlying philosophy of all science.
I too go along with self/not-self as the most basic S/O element,
and you are probably right about not finding a form of SO which is
not self/not-self, but that goes the other way too, so there's no
reason to rename subject-object metaphysics. You are also right in
asserting that there are many dualist pairs; many are offsprings of
SOM, but not all. "Good vs evil" is not (nor self/non-self) , but it
gets its enigmatic character because it is viewed from a SOM pov
(good, evil, value,quality, morals are subjective and not supposed to
be real...??). "Chaos vs order" is the arch-dualism and definitely
not SOM-related. And typically enough; the MOQ is a return to the C/O
concept. Dynamic Q is chaos and Static Q is order.
Horse!
I join you in that the SOM can't be made too general. Diana's
self-nonself division (or Donny's I-THIS), is a most basic starting
point, it was perhaps the incentive which - through the millennia -
led to the assumption that this was the way the world was
constructed. Still, it wouldn't be right to rename SOM a self-nonself
metaphysics because it has an anthropomorphic ring. Pirsig's
subject-object label is the one that covers the METAPHYSICAL aspect
best.
Diana!
Your post of 29 April was good. Particularly the first part of this
passage:
> That's how it appears to us stuck in the SOM, but we have to consider
> how it appears to non-intellectual beings. A tree doesn't see itself as
> different from the soil or the rain. A bird doesn't know it's a bird.
> You might speculate that some of the higher animals have glimmers of
> intellect but, for the most part, their existences move between dynamic
> and static. Animals protect themselves through pure instinct, they have
> absolutely no choice about it.
I am preoccupied with the nonhuman realm, because among us
are living examples of what the Quality idea is all about. The
"instinct" term is a formula we apply when we don't understand what
makes the SO(M)-called "non-sentient" beings perform so many
marvellous feats (your non-intellectual is right). True, all life
protects itself, but there are instances when animals (choose to?)
sacrifice life for other and/or displays great intelligence. One must
heap instincts upon instincts to explain away such anomalies, but it
is the Q-levels at work: Biological value being overridden by social
value, no need for SOM's "instincts". Humans have entered another
Q-level that may override even the social one, but that's another
thread.
Sincerely
Bo
PS. (Thursday 30 Apr.)
As usual, before I get my message completed a whole string of
commentary has arrived in the meantime. Tricia, Ken and Brett have
responded to Diana's observation about animal's perception.
Brett!
I know Nagel's "Bat" essay and Hofstadter's "Mind's I", wow, do I
know them!!! If you care to look on the first two pages of my
"Q-event" essay you'll understand why.
Tricia!
I think Diana is right: there aren't any birds to birds (in the
SOM consciousness sense) that much you concede to too - but you are
right: there is a Q-awareness. F.ex. all creatures sleep, so there
must necessarily be an awakening. But again: not to intellect!!! I
hope we'll return to this fantastically interesting theme.
Ken!
Yes, all life forms protect (appreciates in MOQ-ish) their BIOLOGICAL
value. So does matter which protects its INORGANIC Value. Just
as communities "defends" the SOCIAL value, and ideas protect
the INTELLECTUAL value. (perhaps is it wrong to speak about
matter/life/communities/ideas protecting value. These Q-levels
ARE the values)
-- 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 - 16:43:14 CEST