Bo,
When you say "intellect properly understood (by me:) is the value of
the observer/reality DIVIDE" I am understanding this -- correct me if
I'm wrong -- as, first, acknowledging DQ as that which creates the
divide, and, second, recognizing the value of -- in the common sense of
the term -- objectivity. We value the disinterested judgment over the
biased, and so forth.
(However, I object to your characterization of the divide being between
"observer" and "reality",...see below).
Here's my understanding of SOLAQI:
Quality intellect is S/O intellect, that is, it shows itself as
q-intellect to the extent that the result is all and only about the
object -- no prejudices resulting from social influences, from
self-interest, etc. As a counter to this, one has the half-baked
post-modern objections, first, that there is no such thing as perfectly
unbiased intellect, and second, that the high value attached to
objectivity is itself a bias. I think the first objection can be
dismissed by granting it, and saying we don't expect perfection, just
the best we can do. On the second, I would say that it is beside the
point. WE (in the post-Enlightenment age) value unbiased thinking within
some situation. True, accepting that situation (like wanting to cure
disease through studying germs) is a cultural bias, but (a) it is S/O
thinking that allows for that possibility, and (b) once accepted, one
can WITHIN that subject area, try not to be biased.
However, SOM is a bias, and an example of that can be seen in your
phrase "observer/reality divide". Why is only one side "real"? To be
fair, in ordinary discourse, that use of the word "reality" is
legitimate, but if we are doing metaphysics, then you've loaded the
dice. The MoQ says that both observer and observed are two sides of the
Reality which is that which makes the division into subject and object.
And that is the intellectual level of static quality.
(Is that a fair restatement of SOLAQI? If not, fill me in on what I've
missed. In any case, the following continues from the above.)
My main concern is filling in the MoQ in order to show how one can
preserve and extend q-intellect so that SOM is vanquished. More
insidious cases of where SOM biases our thinking are when conclusions
are drawn from SOM-ish presuppositions. (The most prominent example
these days is Darwinism, by which I mean evolution through chance and
natural selection. It is, I suppose, logically possible that structures
as complex as animals could evolve from inorganic molecules, though I
think it ridiculously implausible. However, I consider it impossible
for the subject/object divide to come about in this way. The only reason
for thinking it could is to assume that only objects are real, and
therefore subjects must be "made out of" objects in some way. Darwinism
is, then, a conclusion forced by dogma.)
Be that as it may, back to metaphysics. SOT is "thinking about", but if
one is restricted to "thinking about" when doing metaphysics, then
hasn't one begged the question in a SOM-ish way? That is, if one sees
metaphysics as the attempt to determine what is real, or to ask how can
we know (the traditional topics: ontology and epistomology) then one has
forced oneself into the pattern: this bit of text is about the real, or
this bit of text is about how the subject comes to know the
real-as-object. It is not too surprising, then, that post-modern types
try to do away with metaphysics entirely. If this was all there was to
it I would agree.
The reason I don't agree is the evidence of mystics, and to a lesser
extent, the existence of modern physics. On the latter, see below. On
the former, I think that the evidence is good enough to encourage
metaphysics to reinvent itself as theology. The mystics reveal this and
that, but it is up to us to make what they reveal rational -- by
applying q-intellect. This works top-down and bottom-up. Top-down is
hearing mystics say that they have transcended subject/object dualism,
or space and time, leaving us to figure out what that implies about
subjects, objects, space, and time. Bottom up is noticing the paradoxes
of ordinary consciousness, and noticing that this is the same sort of
paradox that mystics speak of.
One response is, of course, to give up metaphysics, and many mystics say
that is a good thing to do. But that seems to go against evolution. Why
did q-intellect evolve if it should just be shut down? Perhaps what the
mystics "really meant" is to give up SOM.
The question is: can metaphysics become useful, by which I mean, change
our habits of thinking SO THAT what the mystics say becomes our natural
attitude, instead of our natural attitude being dualist, as is our
current situation?
I think it can, in part by learning from mathematics. Sorry to sound
like a broken record, but pure mathematics IS q-intellect which is not
"thinking about". The thinking IS the mathematics. I think metaphysics
can be done the same way. Not in the sense of setting out axioms and
postulates and then proving theorems, since one can't do that when the
words being used have reference and connotation outside the system. In
fact, not to try to be all that systematic.
Let me stop here, by giving an example, from Franklin Merrell-Wolff, who
happened to be a mystic with prior training in philosophy and
mathematics. The example is at
http://www.integralscience.org/gsc/#aphorisms
Now to physics.
You say: "There is incompatibility between General Relativity and
Newtonian Physics, and very much between QM and NP, but between QM and
GR? Those two hardly share ANY ground ...in my limited knowledge, please
expand on that."
That they do "hardly share any ground" is the problem. They are two very
good theories, describing their respective very different spheres very
well, but are based on opposing presuppositions. GR assumes that
spacetime is continuous and that it is no more than relations between
matter (that is, spacetime is not a container within which matter
exists, rather spacetime is an epiphenomenon of matter's mass, motion,
and acceleration). QM, on the other hand, has up to now just assumed a
backdrop of spacetime, i.e., that electrons et al move about within a
container-like spacetime. And, if it is to extend itself to include
gravity, its spacetime would have to be discrete, not continuous, or the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be violated. So one or the other,
or both, must be wrong. (This is my weak understanding, gathered from
recently reading Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity".)
- Scott
Bo wrote:
> I said that consciousness/awareness are much inflated terms, a kind
of God's
> eye view of reality, and that these (SOM's) mind-derivatives prevent an
> understanding of the MOQ. Its intellectual level becomes the "conscious
> observer" of reality, while intellect properly understood (by me:) is
the value of
> the observer/reality DIVIDE. As said this sounds like picking nits,
but it makes
> for an universe of difference.
>
> You said you disagreed because you thought there is value in such
concepts
> and continued ...."I see the potential for poisoning, but I think
if one is to do
> metaphysics, one can't avoid the words. One might have to bend over
> backwards, like Franklin Merrell-Wolff did by naming his book "The
Philosophy
> of Consciousness-Without-an-Object".
>
> No, the words cannot be avoided and yes, the value of awareness is
> enormous, but it must be seen as the whole mind/matter
(subject-different-
> from-object) aggregate and I desperately want to save this value by
making it
> the intellectual level, but - as said - many reintroduce the SOM by
only heeding
> the subject half. The S/O is the greatest value there is, but if this
value isn't
> preserved as intellectual value and people think that it (intellect)
can change to
> non-SOM the MOQ becomes just another new-age mumbo-jumbo and Pirsig
> has failed monumentally ....and your charge of "vapidity" becomes
only too true.
>
> Naturally I am frustrated by the Wilber campaign that's going on. The
reason
> that John Beasley likes W. is obvious - he never had a clue what the
MOQ is
> about - but that DMB has taken the bait (and compares notes with Gary
of how
> to align Pirsig's and Wilber) saddens me. Wilber's "spirituality" is
poison to the
> MOQ.
>
> And, no, I have no intention of leaving out anything from experience
- least of all
> the aware/unaware separation - rather relegate it to the intellectual
level, and
> postulating that the "Quality Idea" is something beyond intellect,
which solves
> everything.
>
> ....in my opinion.
> Bo
>
> PS
> You said:
>
>
>>Except that there is the incompatibility between QM and General
>>Relativity, so something will change. Of course, Aspect's experiments
>>won't be lost, so whatever might come up as a successor to QM will
>>have to be at least as "irrational" (to SOM that is).
>>
>
> Wow, the Aspect Experiment! There is incompatibility between General
> Relativity and Newtonian Physics, and very much between QM and NP, but
> between QM and GR? Those two hardly share ANY ground ...in my limited
> knowledge, please expand on that.
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST