LS Re: Explain the subject-object metaphysics


Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 25 May 1998 17:10:46 +0100


Fri, 22 May 1998 00:07:00 +0000
Diana McPartlin <diana@asiantravel.com>

> Hi squad
  
(snip)

> It's tempting to go for the A/NOT A answer, because it's simpler and
> it's easier to fit ME/NOT ME inside A/NOT A than vice versa.
 
> But if that's what Pirsig was really after why didn't he call it the
> Metaphysics of the Excluded Middle, or the Either/Or metaphysics? Why
> didn't he write a book about fuzzy logic or Zen contradictions? It's not
> that the MoQ is inconsistent with these things, but these aren't the
> main focus. He called it the subject-object metaphysics, if subject and
> object isn't the dividing line, we're in a lot of trouble.
 
> > "Not vertically- but laterally! (lateral thinking- methinks nice
> > coincidence of phrase-no?) A different kind of dualism altogether! Not
> > schizoid dualism - BUT INTEGRATED DUALISM."
 
> > which is the form A AND NOT A where the divisions are not exclusive but
> > overlapping to a degree which fits reality/experience. A AND NOT A is
> > the MoQ also summed up in a minimalistic form.
 
> We're getting far too abstract here. The MOQ supports A AND NOT A? I
> think we need some examples.

Diana and Squad!
I too winced at Fintan's: "A AND NOT A is the MOQ...etc", but while
we wait for his expansion I join you in the considerations above.
As the current "Explain the SOM" topic is drawing to a conclusion we
better be concise now. The A/NOT A is too wide and even ME/NOT ME
too loose as I see it. As a matter of fact we already have Pirsig's
definition (description at least) of the SOM (in the last part of
ZMM) as he describes its breakthrough in Greek thinking, and it is not
the ability to distinguish between different things (remember the
amoeba example), nor between oneself and other (Donny's S-O
consciousness?). No, SO-METAPHYSICS is as you have formulated it:
        
> "The subject-object metaphysics is the assumption that reality is
> divided into two separate and irreducible realms of subject and object.
> The subject being that which experiences and the object being that which
> is experienced. From this assumption arises the idea that there is a
> subjective reality experienced by each individual and an objective
> reality which exists independent of any individual."
 
 
Good work Diana!

Bo

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST