Hi Squad,
Bo, I'd really want to convince you about dropping the SOLAQI
idea. It gives too much importance to the S/O split, and needlessly
restrains our grasp of Intellect. My last post [ SOLAQI? Why not ?]
gives the S/O split its right (good) place, I believe.
If Subjects and Objects are fundamental, then I might just as well throw
Pirsig's books out by the window, because my only chance to ever see a
world mindfull of Quality is to become a mystic somewhere in the
Himalayas. I'll develop :
B. Skutvik wrote:
> If the first MOQ axiom of everything being value is heeded everything
> should be OK, but up through LS' life there have been tendencies to
> shift the metaphysical split away from the DQ/SQ position over to the
> 'dog'/animal example. When you [ROGER] write:
>
> > As I stated in my post of Sept 5th, this idealism issue is critical when
> > getting our minds around the intellectual level and the ramifications of the
> > logos. As long as we continue mistaking our words and concepts for "primal
> > reality" we continue to live in Aristotle's world. I wrote:
>
> I am not convinced that you pay Aristotle full justice. HE did not
> mistake words and concepts for primal reality, inspired by Plato he
> created the distinction between substance and form; idea and
> illusion. The fact that his 'substance' was reality and 'form'
> the actual animal (in Plato's cave allegory primal reality is the
> idea casting an illusory shadow on the wall) isn't so important; the
> metaphysical split between the two realms is the main thing!
>
You miss a point here, I believe. You are right, Aristotle thought
substance was reality. The problem here is that we never experience
substance. It's a problem he knew about. It is the first decisive
mind/matter split, the divorce between us and reality. Under those
terms, Reality is something we will never experience *directly*. So how
could we say anything about it ?
The answer to this problem is in the Forms. They could be named,
classified and explained. A metaphysics was just that : Meta-physics.
Physics at a meta-level. By creating an analogue of physics (an analogue
of Substance), the reality could be understood.
I object to the idea that Aritotle thought Forms were an illusion ! He
thought they were real !
We could not experience what was IN them (substance), but the Forms
COULD be experienced ! It is the basis of empiricism. When things were
said about the Forms, then they became objects of dialectical
discussion, and their objective worth (whether they were true or false)
could be ascertained. Once all Forms were classified, their functions
and relationships determined by logical reasoning, the end product would
be the TRUTH ! A identical image of reality, the objective map of it !
Thus would be the mind/matter division not abolished but bridged.
> The reason for my stressing that Q-intellect is not mind, but rather
> the mind/matter AGGREGATE, is that (as I see the MOQ) the barking or
> whinnying forms aren't DYNAMIC reality until a human being comes
> along and "gives names to all the animals". They are Biological
> patterns.... grandparent of Intellectual patterns!
>
> Look, it's not only 'dog' or 'horse' that are words, so if language
> is on the other side of a metaphysical fence the rest is silence.
> But as Denis pointed out, language plays an important role in the
> forming of the Q-Intellect, but is not IT. Rather - as he also
> pointed out - the "machine code" between Q-society and Q-intellect
> ("the DNA of Intellect". Very good!). Its notorious subject/object
> nature slowly caused the conviction that the split between words and
> the real thing was existence itself and - Voila, le SOM meme!
> (supposed to be French: Look, the SOM incarnate)
>
I'll restate it once again, the S/O split ISN'T a characteristic of
Language. The characteristic of Language is that it makes DISTINCTIONS.
DQ and SQ is such a distinction, maya and dharma another, Ideas and
Appearances a third. Hell, to differenciate dogs from wolves is a
fourth, and I could go on forever like this. DEFINITION, as Marco
pointed out, is to give a border to something. It's about making
distinctions.
Subject and Object only come into being when someone decides that
the world is made of Substance and Forms, Matter-like stuff and
Mind-like stuff. Then, and only then can a Subject (a mind) perceive an
Object (a Form) and make objective statements about it. If he says
things about stuff that's only in his mind, THEN it's a subjective
statement. That's how Aristotle trashed Plato's Idealism.
> When concluding as I will below I appeal to your collective goodwill.
> Theorizing, naming - thinking - about animals and things even about
> thinking itself - is not going on in an abstract sphere about
> something more real in another concrete sphere. Q- INTELLECT IS THE
> ABILITY TO MAKE THE BI-SPHERIC DISTINCTION ITSELF. The highest and
> most valuable stage that evolution has reached - yet.
>
LANGUAGE makes endless distinctions, and not necessarily bi-spheric ones
(though they ARE popular, aren't they ?).
As for things going on in an ABSTRACT sphere about something MORE REAL
in another CONCRETE sphere ! Bodvar ! I'm shocked ! I just caught you
wallowing back into SOM !
Admit it, I caught you there. You'll say you meant this wasn't what's
taking place, but no one was saying it either. All we (Roger and I) were
saying is that the levels were located in the Q-Intellect, and that
discussing dogs was discussing a intellectual pattern deduced from
Quality. An important axiom of the MOQ would be :
- All patterns of value are also Intellectual patterns of value.
Discussing about an atom, a dog, a government, an idea, is discussing a
MODEL. There is nothing else but Quality itself, which is better left
out of any discussion. This recursive function of Language is what gives
Q-Intellect it's Dynamic drive. Any meaning can be defined by more
meanings, if you remember to leave Quality/Value out of it. That's where
it should stop. Few of us heed this warning, though.
> I am - as said - convinced that Aristotle said that SUBSTANCE
> is reality while the running FORM is transient and illusory. I
> contest that words (horse or dog) was his "substance", but the very
> DICHOTOMY which did not follow our present lines slowly shifted up
> through the ages ("Nominal/universal" was the Medieval dividing
> line) to the one that we know as Cartesian today.
>
As above, Aristotle didn't think Forms were illusory, otherwise why
would he start classifying them, discussing them if he thought they were
subjective ?
> > To summarize the month's topic, the intellectual level is more than SOM. The
> > problem is that the SOM logos has become our mythos. The way language works
> > helped develop the objectifying mythos and led us to a shared view of reality
> > that was fundamentally flawed. We discarded quality for truth. We forgot
> > that our models of reality are not the full reality that we think they
> > describe. We forgot that when we say 'dog' that no dogs come out of our
> > mouth. We forgot that the levels are just shared abstractions to be judged
> > by quality, not truth.
>
> My thesis is still that Intellect is SOM, but your "..judged by
> quality.." bit may bridge the gap between us. SOM-as-Q-Intellect
> immediately strips it of its METAPHYSICAL status. The division, be it
> idea/shadow, substance/form, words/reality, mind/matter ..whatever,
> is seen as the highest STATIC realm, but no longer as how existence
> is constructed. For us MOQ followers the present construct is the
> DQ/SQ split and that is not remotely related with those.
>
The division is the tool for analyzing reality, not reality itself. It
is the first classification. Metaphysicians search for the best one, the
place where they are going to start operating Reality with their
analytical scalpel. Pirsig was mindfull of Quality and left it out the
cut, Aritotle wasn't and he killed it.
> I dare not repeat your "but I could be wrong", but maybe our
> difference is a Bodvar construction
>
> Yours.
I'll try to summarize your SOLAQI idea, Bodvar :
Language divides things, and you see it as the S/O split. This splitting
process is then seen as the Q-Intellect doing its job (or as the
Q-Intellect itself, I'm not sure). The process of splitting and of
logically re-ordering the pieces IS Q-Intellect seen from your
perspective. As such, it WAS created by the Greeks.
The problem I see here is that you mistake the Language "defining
function" for S/O Logic. S/O Logic is a PRODUCT of this function, one
among others. Subject and Object aren't primary, as I'm sure you know.
Language doesn't have to distinguish between us and the world. Many
so-called "primitive culture" attest to that. It's only when seen from a
western SOM perspective that this conclusion seems inescapable.
Because when you say : "there is this dog. and here is me." you FORGET
that you're ONLY TALKING (what is more, from a mystic perpective you're
talking shit) ;-)
But with the MOQ, we can always take a step back from metaphysics into
mysticism. We always know that we are one with the universe. Not passive
observers, but a part of the general flux. And if we're brave enough, we
can *become* the flux (OK, I've no idea HOW, but theorically it's
possible).
>From the MOQ perspective, we're only PLAYING with words. Never saying
TRUE things, but GOOD ones. Like a good joke. Nothing more.
Take a step back. Look at this post. This is only a good way of viewing
the world, not a true one.
Be good
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT