Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Mon, 25 May 1998 09:03:30 +0100
On Wed, 20 May 1998, Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>
> Theo, I smell danger here. If the Quality idea isn't in conflict with
> f.ex. materialism and/or idealism my understanding of Pirsig's
> teachings must be revised completely. I fear this is SOM trying to
> get the MOQ inside its own territory where it can tear it to pieces
> by dialectic method (no personal accusation please). On the other
> hand, if you buy my assertion that the SOM is the Q-Intellect; the
> highest evolutionary rung - well, then I accept your advice
> unconditionally.
>
I don't think you need to re-think your understanding of the
MoQ, Bo, but maybe you could re-examine your understanding of
"Idealism." I went looking for a definition of the term and I found
this passage in an ubpubilshed commontary by Dwight Van de Vate:
"Now self-consciousness must not mearly relinquish itself,
alianate itself [into S and O], and then merge w/ the substance of the
world, for this would be merely a one-sided movement of the imagination.
(Perhaps we might say: an "idealism," in the sense normaly given the
term by Anglo-Amarican philosophers.) Not only must the subject know
itself as an object, but the object in itself, the ethical substance,
must come to the knowledge of itself as a knowing subject."
Now, if there's something in there that you dissagree w/ please let me
know.
It's like you agree that SOM is built around the false belief in
the duality of S and O, but you don't want to agree that S and O are
really the same thing, which is the position defined as Idealism, just
so you can set MoQ in opposition to any form of Idealism. As I see it,
the MoQ is an Idealism, a lot like Zen or Taoism. What part of the
general definition of idealism given above does not fit your
understanding of the MoQ?
I'm not sure I smell danger, Bo; I think I just smell something
fishy.
TTFN
Donny
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST