LS Re: Explain the subject-object metaphysics


Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Sun, 10 May 1998 18:16:20 +0100


8 May 1998 01:38:28 +0000
Horse <horse@wasted.demon.nl>
wrote:

> Greetings from Sunny(!) Cambridge

Hi Horse
Sounds like an event?!
 
> Magnus wrote:
> "Thank you for an interesting and important post. However, I wouldn't say that
> SOM is synonymous with dualism. At some point or another, I think every world
> view is a dualism.

I agree with Magnus here.

> Maggie:
> I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
> dualism, it is how you regard the two forms. Where they are mutually exclusive
> and where all of reality is in one set OR the other problems arise. As you
> brought up in a previous post, where is the interface of one to the other. How
> can two distinct catagories co-exist. If we admit that they are not distinct
> but complement each other, are interdependent and part of the same thing then
> most of these problems disappear.

See later in my post

> The DQ/SQ split is complementary not combative.
 
Yes, but so did Niels Bohr say about the mutually exclusive
entities of Quantum theory without making them more reconcilable.

Horse, Magnus and Squad (continued)
Again a minefield ahead. I feel that there is an undercurrent of
anti-dualism around these days and a corresponding trend for
unity, holism, and that the MOQ is looked upon as relief from the
former, and - consequently - there is disappointment if we start to
speak of dualism again.Yet, dualism seems to be unavoidable in the
metaphysical game and should not make anyone scramble for the
door. As Horse says: "there is nothing intrinsically wrong with
dualisms".

SOM is dualistic but Its great "sin" is not that, rather that the
division is at the wrong place. The MOQ's fault-line runs along far
different lines (I called it Chaotic/Orderly and not
Subjective/Objectively (and Richard protested!)) and because of that
it is (more) in accordance with experience (I don't say "reality"
because it evokes 'objectivity') Regarding the the two other
criteria: economy and consistency it is about equal to SOM.

The Dynamic/Static division however is the MOQ's "sine qua non" that
which one can't do without. Once a static pattern is established it
is NOT dynamic any more, the DQ/SQ shift and what causes
it is Quality's postulates - also a must: (....evolutionary
pressure...the quality event....weak dynamic force...."migration"...
Pirsig has called it in his works) I don't think it is useful to
look for subtle points of transition. The MOQ's strength is that its
dividing line does not run vertical through the middle of everything
but laterally at a depth that only make it tremors felt.

Doug (are you there!?) made a video sequence of the SOM to
MOQ transformation that ended in the yin/yang circle and that is
a good figure. The SOM world is forever divided in two blocks while
the MOQ is "closed" at the level that is significant for our
existence. (particularly if the SAIOM can be incorporated!!).

Sincerely
Bo

--
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 - 16:43:15 CEST