Hi Bo, Scott and all,
This post has been bothering me and I had no time to reply till now.
So here goes.
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
> Hi Gary (Scott mentioned)
> You said (14 July):
>
> > Hi Bo and Scott, and all.
> > Can I ask a question? How can you get around the
> > "bias" of being an observer? Which therefore means an
> > acknowledgment that there can never be pure
> > objectivity.
>
> Is this a question? You seem to have the answer too :-)
>
> > This is perfectly okay. It just means that we need to
> > always remember to be ready to compensate to remember
> > that we could we in error about what we understand
> > about our experiences and what we believe about them.
> > It just means we could be wrong. Our own perspective
> > is eternally shading what we observe. This is the
> > "observer/reality DIVIDE". which I would call the
> > Internal Reality [observer] & External Reality
> > [observed]. Theoretically External Reality is where
> > 100% pure objectivity is, but we are always in our own
> > mind, own culture, own Q-Intellect and thus never able
> > to view anything outside of that framework.
>
> OK, this is the observer/observed divide, that we all agree about, but I
want
> it to be the intellectual level of the MOQ! Sounds like you agree from
what
> you say lower down.
GARY'S RESPONSE: I agree with you, Bo, I believe so far that the
observer/observed divide exists on the 4th level the Individual
level/Q-Intellect level. Scott says the divide goes on at all levels. I
need to re-read Scott's post and have perhaps if Scott could expand on this
and explain in more detail I could be convinced that his take is more
accurate.
>
> [NB! To this Scott answered: "No. The divide is the creation of subject
and
> object which is entirely correct in the sense that THE VALUE creates, that
> goes for all levels. I just don't want us to get lost in details.]
>
> Of course it is impossible to be unbiased in any absolute sense, that's
why
> S-O Metaphysics is flawed,
GARY'S RESPONSE: I need to interrupt the program here Bo because it appears
that you are combining two ideas into one and causing me, and perhaps your
self, confusion. The issue of bias and the observer/observed divide is
different than, the Subject - Object problem caused by S-O Metaphysics.
The Subject-Object divide that you are about to mention in the rest of your
sentence is not the same divide as the observer/observed divide. One may
have caused and influenced the other, that is another discussion. But the
two are different and in the O'er/O'ed divide exists even in a MOQ system,
that is what I beleive.
To explain: I need to repeat a prior topic: What is the Subject - Object
Divide? This divide comes about by using substance/matter as the point of
entry to building a metaphysical system. Under S-0 the world is split
between matter/material Objects and mind/Immaterial Subjects.
From Lila chap 12, pg 153: "Another huge one is the mind-matter puzzle. If
the world consist only of patterns of mind and patterns of matter, what is
the relationship between the two?" This is the heart of S-O M problem. How
can material things interact with immaterial things?
To return to Pirsig: "But this division is the source of the problem. When
a subject-object metaphysics regards matter and mind as eternally separate
and eternally unalike, it creates a platypus bigger than the solar system.
It has to make this fatal division because it gives top position in its
structure to subjects and objects. Everything has got to be object or
subject, substance or non-substance, because that's the primary division of
the universe. Inorganic-biological patterns are composed of 'substance',
and are therefore 'objective'. Social-intellectual patterns are not
composed of 'substance' and are therefore called 'subjective'."
Note: this is all about the question of how two seemingly different things,
matter and non-matter mind, how they come to exist and interact. That is
the S-O divide and questions. This is not the question of the relationship
between Observer and Observed. Yes there is a connection but we don't need
to get a inexorable link between the two questions. MOQ gets rid of S-O
divide as being significant and as being causative. [Which you already
know.] By using Quality to divide up Reality you realize that mind & matter
were created by the same thing and thus can interact because they have
similar causative patterns. Hence no problem. Matter and non-material Mind
is at root, at its pattern, the same and thus able to interact. End of S-O
problem and no need to have or use the S-O as the way to build a
metaphysical map.
I return us to your post:
[Bo:]... but the static value of the subject/object divide is
> of enormous importance. It has given us the modern world and we would be
> bad off forfeiting that by declaring it a "bad intellectual idea" replaced
by the
> better MOQ. S/O is Intellect - lock stock ..etc while the Quality is an
idea
> not at home with Intellect.
>
> > Therefore: "Quality intellect is S/O intellect
GARY'S RESPONSE: Here is where we differ. S-O to me is a map, and an
inadequate one at that. To you S-O is the nature of Q-intellect. Hence
SOLAQI! You repeatedly say that S-O M created the modern world. This is
true historically speaking for part of the planet. S-O M was the only
Western M around and so was part of the creation of the modern Western world
and worldview. S-O M is not part of the world views of India [Hinduism or
Buddhism] nor is S-O M part of China & Japan [Tao & Shinto's]. S-O is part
of the Western world view and thus under pinning Western Science. Any
culture using Western Science, which is the whole planet, is thus grafting
onto their culture the S-O M with all its problems. Q-Intellect is composed
of any and all ideas every created and realized by any human on this
planet. Thus Q-Intellect is not exclusively S-O oriented. Half the planet,
India, China, Japan, never had S-O M until it was imported with Western
science and Western religion [Christianity] [I forgot to mention
Christianity, as it is currently configured and believed, is depended on
and built upon S-O M.] Q-Intellect is not the exclusive property of Western
minds and Western Individuals. Q-Intellect is contained in all humans on
this planet. Thus Q-Intellect is NOT THE EQUIALENT OF SOLAQI AND HAS NOT
BEEN FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN INDIA, CHINA & JAPAN. Thus SOLAQI exists as
part of your 'Western' worldview map but it is not inherent in the nature of
Q-Intellect or inherent in the nature of reality.
To repeat for emphasis: S-O divide is NOT inherent in Q-Intellect.
We can remove S-O Metaphysics without ending the world as we know it. By
replacing S-O M with MOQ we can construct a more accurate understand of the
world, which you do know. You seem to think that Q-Intellect is the
equivalent of S-O divide/thinking.
But to eliminate S-O divide is NOT to eliminate Observer/Observed divide.
That one remains as inherent in the nature of Reality and thus has to be
considered by MOQ.
Back to your post where once we leave the S-O divide and focus on O'er/O'ed
divide we are in agreement....
> [Bo]
> Right, here you say it!
>
> > 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."
>
> Well, Intellect does in fact recognize an influence from other people and
> from self-interest which it calls "subjective" and what we must strive to
free
> ourselves from. According to intellect this objectivity is PRINCIPALLY
> possible.
>
> > Is from the get go a inaccurate
> > statement. There is never an examination of anything
> > "only about the object -- no prejudices". We can only
> > look out at the world from within our perspective.
>
> Yes, this we know from the QUALITY perspective, but Intellect knows no
> social or intellectual LEVEL, it views reality as Subject/Object divided.
Full
> Stop!
>
> > To use a literary analogy: We are striving for 3rd
> > person Omniscient perspective. But we in reality can
> > only see the world from a 1st person limited
> > perspective. To see the world from "3rd person
> > Omniscience" is to be God!
>
> "Elementary Dr Watson" :-) However, the MOQ postulates no God's Eye
> view. Whatever wants to free itself from Intellect's bias will be a new
bias. It
> goes on and on, but as said to Scott: Intellect's value of a principally
> obtainable objective reality has come to stay and will be part of the Q-
> development forever after.
>
> > Okay, now it seems that at the end of your dialogue
> > you two realize that we can only do the best we can.
> > You two seem to recognize that we are operating from
> > some kind of limitation in our perspective. At the
> > end of this post you seem to have moved away from the
> > statement of un-bias objectivity that I point out and
> > that I questioned. So, in the end I think you have
> > realized that we can only have a 1st person limited
> > perspective.
>
> > Is that a fair characterization of your
> > understandings?
>
> If you ask me? YES!
>
> > Acknowledging I'm not God,
>
> You are a great metaphysician Gary and a pleasure to talk to.
>
> Bo
GARY'S RESPONSE: I don't know if I am a "great metaphysician". I
occasionally have such "delusions" about myself. Anyway. the 1st person
limited perspective is another way to frame the O'er/O'ed divide. There
would be no divide if we had 3rd person Omniscience and thus no seperation
O'er and O'ed. From the perspective of Quality or Divinity, the Observer
is the thing doing the Observation! It is an act of introspection! It is
not an act of examintaion, which is what it is for us mere 1st person
limited humans.
Trying to bring clairity, or am I bring confusion?,
Gary
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 - 16:02:27 BST