Hi Bo, & all,
As I said to Scott...wow!
I will need to print this and read it a dozen times or
so. I hope to be able to respond next week end. Need
to mull over this and Scott's post. this post I is
bringing me to understanding SOLAQI!!! Yea! Though I
haven't the clarity of comprehension to know if I
agree or not. I am excited to figure this whole thing
out. [I confess am a definite card carrying member of
PA=Philosopher's Annonoymous! "I am a idea addict!!!!
:)]
Wowed by ideas,
Gary
--- skutvik@online.no wrote:
> 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]
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
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