Hi Scott, & Bo, & all,
So, here we go. I'll begin with a point/paragraph response.
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott R <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
> Gary,
>
> Since most of your response is directed at Bo's response, I'll not
> respond directly, rather see if I can help clarify my own position.
>
> First, I think the overall confusion was instigated by Pirsig, by his
> labeling social and intellectual patterns as "the subject" and
> inorganic/biological patterns as "the object". This is ok, and makes
> sense to explain how we traditionally use the word "objective" to
> suggest unbiased thinking and "subjective" to suggest biased. However,
> this is NOT how philosophy currently uses the terms when the topic under
> discussion is internationality. There, the assumption (a SOM one) is that
> all of our experience is that of a Subject perceiving/experiencing/etc.
> an Object. So in this venue, the subject/object divide is meant to be
> the same as the observer/observed divide, and I will be using SOT to
> mean that.
GARY'S RESPONSE: I will take as correct your knowledge of the current usage
of terms in Philosophy. I haven't read this kind of material since College
back in 1975+ . So we can assume that the subject/object divide is meant
to cover both the questions of how the substance of matter interacts with
the presumably non-substance of mind & the s/o divide also is meant to cover
the observer/observed divide.
Having said that, we still are in Pirsig land. Under the rules of his
'game' which is his MOQ he defines the subject/object divide as only
addressing the mind/matter substance/nonsubstance divide. As shown by my
citation from Lila in my original post which you are responding to.
Still, we are here to take Pirsig and build off him. So let's tackle both
the divides in our analysis. Thus we will try and go forward and see if s/o
divide can by used for both.
>
> SOLAQI is, then, using the words "Subject" and Object" in the
> intentional sense, and is saying that our intellectual activity comes in
> the form of a subject/observer experiencing/observing an
> object/observed. Under the category of "observed" are thoughts,
> feelings, and social patterns, once they are taken under reflection.
> "reflection", of course, is another word for SOT.
>
> Therefore, I claim that the only way we DO think reflectively is SOT (we
> also think non-reflectively, on automatic pilot, so to speak, but that
> is not, in my view, q-intellect.). And so the MOQ as it currently exists
> is a product of SOT. So, yes, both SOM and the MOQ are maps.
>
> Up to here, I think we agree. Correct me if not.
GARY'S RESPONSE: SOM & MOQ are maps, we agree. SOLAQI is referring to both
of the two divides. Both are part of the s/o that is part of the
Q-intellect.
If you and Bo want to keep 'non-reflective'/ auto pilot mind processes as
not part of Q-Intellect, that's okay by me. For now, I will give you this.
Let's see where it takes us. I would have to assume, and you can correct
me, that this 'non-reflectiveauto pilot/sub-conscious and/or unconscious
mental processing has to be accounted for somewhere, since Pirsig game rules
are that everything is accounted for in his four levels. This leaves all
that mental processing as 2nd level biological activities of the individual
human brain. That's fine. But this seems to make Q-intellect only
conscious thinking and leaving all un & sub conscious 'thinking' as brain
process solely. Not something I'm all that fond of but I can go along with
the program.
As you are explaining all maps, SOM & MOQ are a products of SOT? are also
products of SOLAQI? Since SOLAQI is the equivalent of Q-Intellect?
>
> You say that in the East there was q-intellect that was not SOT. On this
> I disagree. Recall, first, that what we consider the wisdom of the East
> was formulated at about the same time that SOT had its beginnings in the
> West. The difference between the two is that in the East there was more
> attention paid to the ineffability of the Tao/Brahman/etc. But note that
> this ineffability only becomes a problem IF one is undergoing SOT. That
> is, one has developed the awareness that there are objects "out there"
> independent of my thinking of them. Then, to deal with the Tao, one must
> emphasize that it is NOT an object.
>
> The error of SOM is to think that the observer and the observed are
> independently real (or in its materialist form, that only the observed
> is real and the observer is some sort of phenomenon). The smart
> thinkers of both East and West understood this, but are restricted to
> SOT to explain this. The very idea of "explaining" is a SOT phenomenon.
GARY'S RESPONSE: It seems to me that Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism posited no
difference between matter & mind. They seem to dissolve matter as an
illusion seen by mind. All was mind or all was spirit. [Which is what you
will be saying shortly.] Thus half of the s/o divide does not exist in the
'Eastern' version of Q-Intellect. But, you seem to be saying that if they
were aware of this issue which they were at pains to explain away they are
thus actually caught in SO thinking. Thus they were 'really' using a SOM.
Which I guess means that MOQ is also a SOM! It too is working to explain
away SO and thus must be caught in SOM?? Is that what you mean to be
saying? That all human thinking is caught in SO framework?
>
> Now here is where I feel that your emphasis on "the map is not the
> territory" becomes a danger. If the observer and the observed are not
> independent (as Buddhism et al, and now the MOQ affirm), then there is a
> prior whatever that produces them in mutual interdependence. In the MOQ
> that is Quality, whose initial division (in our understanding) is into
> DQ and sq. So the question is, how does this relate to our understanding
> of SOT?
>
> Clearly (I hope), "static patterns of value" are what we call the
> observed. That would seem to leave DQ as the observer. I think this is,
> on first approximation, correct. It is not, of course "me". "I" am a set
> of static patterns, which in some way filter my experience of all static
> patterns (leading to the other meaning of "subjective" and "objective"),
> and so to "experience" DQ "I" must dissolve all static patterns (as
> Pirsig says, ch. 30). So far, so good (standard mystical understanding).
> But now I must appeal, once again, to Franklin Merrell-Wolff. In his
> aphorisms (http://www.integralscience.org/gsc/#aphorisms), he says that
> the "Pure Subject", that is, what you get when the Universe (the
> observed) completely dissolves, is Nirvana. Thus we have Pure Subject =
> Nirvana = DQ. However, Merrell-Wolff experienced a second Recognition in
> which Nirvana too dissolved into what he initially called the High
> Indifference, and later Consciousness without an object and without a
> subject. For this to be the case, then DQ must also, in some way be the
> Universe, since in some way Nirvana and samsara are the same. I don't
> expect to understand this, only to accept it as a guide.
>
> In particular, it tells me that the set of static patterns that I
> experience is as much a map as my thinking of it, that to make the
> distinction "the map is not the territory" is, ultimately, as bogus as
> the distinction between subject and object. It tends to reinforce the
> idea that there is an independently existing objective reality.
>
> But here we are, still doing SOT. I think it inescapable that for SOT to
> be occurring, Wolff's "Pure Subject" has to be there, though that of
> course is not anything we can be aware of. But the important point is
> that the observed DOES NOT EXIST except when observed. That is, the
> action of DQ in observing the observed is at the same time the creation
> of the observed. The hazard at this point is to think that the observed
> is being created "out of" some unobserved substance. That is a SOM
> mistake. And that is why I criticize your metaphysics (as given in your
> essay) for assuming that "everything" is, fundamentally, matter/energy.
>
> - Scott
GARY'S RESPONSE: Here things get tricky, so I'll go slowly to make sure I
get it. What your saying is that DQ is the ultimate Observer and the
ultimate Observed. DQ = Pure Subject/ which I can assume is also
Tao/Nondual reality. DQ=Divinity. And the observed only exists when DQ
observes it. [Sort of harkening back, I believe to Bishop Berkeley, didn't
he "overcome" the mind/body problem by saying that everything exists in the
mind of God?] Anyway, Thus you want to say that fundamentally Reality is
not matter/energy but Divinity.
Here I realize is how I have been shaped by my background. Judaism views
creation, the physical realm as the prime cosmic real estate. This realm is
where the action is. And all of creation is made to manifest in the
physical realm. The realm of the angels and all the heavenly beings got the
short end of the deal. Here in the physical is the best that the Divine has
got to offer. So, Judaism has the cosmic nondual Ayn Sof which is the
infinite, the perspective that is most important is not the God's eye view
but the matter/human eye view of the cosmos. Hence my map which is built
from the view point of someone standing in matter and look around. From
there, yes there is a divine & there is the overarching Ayn Sof which is
beyond and before matter/energy I still focused not on the level of Pure DQ
but on the material realm. I was focusing on the particle aspect of the
photon, as it were, and your statement that everything is Pure DQ, which is
the god's eye view look out to build the map of reality, your focus is thus
on the wave aspect of the photon. Both aspects are valid and true ones.
they are complementary perspectives. So from the perspective of DQ there
is no real s/o divide.
Now you seem to be saying perhaps more than that. You may be saying that
ultimate reality is DQ's perspective and the rest is maya. Thus there is no
map & territory. No "independently existing objective reality'. Are you
trying to say this? That the only valid perspective is DQ's ?
Hmm. Maybe yes and maybe no. But here comes two lines of thinking that
will end this 'game' with check and then check mate.
HERE IS CHECK: It is starts with a question similar to Descartes: What is
it that I can be certain of? My, actually Alfred Korzybski's answers back
in 1933 when he wrote Science and Sanity, is the following. Everything we
humans think, write, read, speak is human words. All of it. There is
nothing else. We 'live' in our language. Nothing we think, write, read or
speck is anything but human words. So we have 1 certain category, words.
These words refer to other words and also to 'things', they point to and
refer to non-human things. Things that are not human words but exist apart
from those words. So we have a second category, things. Everything we have
been doing is manipulating those human words. Words referring to non-human
things. Those descriptions , those strings of words are 'maps'. Those
non-human things that the words are referencing is the 'territory'. No
amount of arguing can change this. Everything you say is words, Everything
any human has ever said is words.
Next. Humans have a capacity to deceive. Humans can deceive others and
themselves. We can feel absolutely certain but still be deluded. [The
phantom limb phenomenon of amputee's is an example of how strong is this
self delusion. The amputee still feels his cut off limb!] Thus human word
maps can not be trusted with 100% certainty. They could be an inaccurate
map of the territory. Beside the fact that the map is just words and the
territory is always and forever not words but something other than human
words.
We now have a divide that is beyond matter & mind. It is the ultimate
formation of the o'er/o'ed divide. maps/observer/mapmakers are
fundamentally not the same as the observed/territory. This is inescapable.
All our previous agreement on DQ being the true observer observing itself is
just a bunch of human words, a map which may not be and can never be
considered ultimately true by any human. Maps of reality have always have
to consider the human vantage point and built from there.
CHECK MATE: But, we know that there is a Divine and that we humans partaking
of the divine can reach up &/or inward and make true contact with the
divine. Revelation is the result! We humans can have a revelation and thus
learn directly from the divine the true nature of reality and build a true
map from this! This is what the whole DQ is Pure Subject is all about.
This is not mere human words but a true description of reality and thus.....
Hold on. What we know for certain about humans is that we are finite. What
we believe for certain about Pure Subject/Divine/Tao/Ayn Sof is that it is
infinite. The Infinite is like all the sand on this planet. The finite is
a single sand bucket. Revelation is all that sands suspended above us and
we are underneath it with our san bucket. Bam! Revelation is all that sand
pouring down on us and filling our bucket. How full? To the brim? How much
is in the bucket? A finite amount. How much is not in the bucket? A
infinite amount. The result of revelation is finite amount of information.
Infinite territory and only a finite map. Even if we assume that what is in
the bucket is true. In actuality, what goes in the bucket is a two step
process. Sand was selected on the basis of who we are, our culture, our
ideas, our time, our psychological development, etc. All of that bias what
went into the bucket. Different humans have different buckets. Then we
have to understand what is in the bucket. There we again affect the outcome
with our beliefs, bias, cultures, etc. We can also deceive ourselves and
not even know we have distorted the information. Thus we are back with our
bucket is a map which we can not ever be certain is an accurate map, but we
can be certain it is a finite map. The territory is still infinite and not
the equivalent of our maps. The map & the territory is a inherent part of
the nature of human reality. And since we are all humans that is all we
have! We have only human maps! We can never escape this map & territory
divide. We can not ever be more than humans. Check & mate. Game is over.
There is no way around the map & territory.
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 - 16:02:28 BST