Gary and Group
You said (20 July)
> 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.
Maybe I should have left out Scott not to mar our agreement :-) so I drop
any comment on what he means.
(me from before)
> > 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.
Isn't the power of a new view to combine two conflicting ideas, show that
they are two perspectives of the same thing? S/O as a metaphysics (reality
itself) is oblivious to itself being "biased", while the S/O as a Q-level is aware
of this limitation. Hope I got your objection right?
> 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.
Yes, yes and yes again Gary, it's what I believe too. The great question is
however if the S/O (O'er/O'ed as a valuable yet limited perspective) can be
maintained without it destroying the motivation ....of science for instance. I
am right now reading a special issue of Scientific American on "Mind" and
read a lot of somish qualifications behind the lines, yet it is terribly interesting
to learn what brain segments are involved with what "mind" experiences.
> 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.
Total agreement except that given SOM's premises one can't help hunting
for the mind/matter connection - or relationship - that is what I called the
"somish qualifications" above.
> 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.
According to Pirsig the bridge between Inorganic matter and Intellectual
mind are Biology and Society ...and it works well, yet he also postulate the
inorganic-biological/social-intellect as the "objective/subjective" and then it
starts to falter - then there is some special chasm between society and
intellect. OK there are chasms between all levels but none of more
importance than other.
I think the SOLAQI works better in that respect.
> 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.
(Gary from old)
> > > Therefore: "Quality intellect is S/O intellect
...which I naturally agree with :-)
> 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.
Terrific stuff this Gary, deep insights into the issue - no irony - exactly what I
have been over many times in my private moments.
I am fully aware of the Eastern tradition as non-somish and thus counter to
the SOL interpretation, still as I read the RT chapter of LILA it seems as the
if Pirsig thinks that the Hindis (he mostly speak about them not the
buddhists) have solved the dynamic/static problem, yet have no static
LEVELS in their makeup. In moq-speak it means that in their tradition
(much older than the Western) they already HAVE passed the intellectual
stage ... knowingly or not.
> 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.
Yes, I do think Q-intellect is equivalent of the S/O divide and also that
removing it indeed "end" the world as we know it. Here we differ
fundamentally.
> 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.
Arrrgh, why must you destroy all the good reasoning you have done up to
now? (grin) The very notion of a "nature of reality" independent of what
people thinks about it IS THE VERY Q-INTELLECT! And yes it has to be
considered by the MOQ, that is done by my SOLAQI that says that the
MOQ is something not at home with Intellect yet "from" Intellect ... like all
levels are from their parent and incorporate the parents values as a (minor)
part of its own system.
Remember Maggie Hettinger pointing out "...mind is from society"? which is
MOQ's perspective, but so many haven't manage to switch to that that, but
spoke about mind as as a mysterious realm of thinking ...which is S/O-
intellect's perspective.
> Back to your post where once we leave the S-O divide and focus on
> O'er/O'ed divide we are in agreement....
(here the reproduction of old messages got so complicated that I omit it
> 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.
I believe that language has a (grammatical) 1st. person, yet this did not
indicate any Observer/Observed metaphysical divide. To the cave-dwellers
who used language reality was something that they were able to influence,
hence no S/O absolute. No cave "sceptics" :-)
> 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.
I believe that also the third person was part of language's make-up without it
causing ideas about an objective reality. When SOM emerged with the
Greeks (as described in ZAMM) language merely reflected the development.
> Trying to bring clairity, or am I bring confusion?,
I still maintain that you are a great thinker, managing (even) to bring
disagreements into focus.
Bo
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