bodvar:
Exactly, the subject-object division cannot and should not be
ignored, it is the Q-Intellect; the highest static value level;
subordinate only to Dynamic Quality. (re. zen see my reply to
Lithien)
i havent seen any reply to me!
lithien
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Bodvar Skutvik <skutvik@online.no>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: MD Brain, Mind and Intellect
Hi Glove and Lihien!
GLOVE. You wrote:
> i too share your concerns, yet even Pirsig himself acknowledges subjects
and
> objects in his Metaphysics of Quality when he says in so many words that
the
> inorganic and biological levels correspond to object while the
> social/intellect levels corresponds to subject. this is a pragmatic tool
to
> use and nothing more. and even while i was writing that passage to Keith
you
> cited, i knew someone would object strongly to it.
He does, and you are entitled to point that out to me. I repeat my
standard answer that IMHO it was him desperately trying to make a
bridge from SOM to the MOQ, but that connection must be reinforced
and in that process his first rickety construction may be
"encapsuled". I am proud of my idea that the Q-Intellect IS
subject-objectivism itself. It is such an inassailable idea as you
will see.
> if we are to ignore zen, subject and objects, and put all intincts and
> intuition in the biological level, we are right back where we
> started...hopelessly mired in preconceived notions and agreements that
lead
> nowhere. i find it odd that you feel the same way only a mirrored image of
> my feelings...very strange. but life is like that.
Exactly, the subject-object division cannot and should not be
ignored, it is the Q-Intellect; the highest static value level;
subordinate only to Dynamic Quality. (re. zen see my reply to
Lithien)
> i am not out to amuse anyone with my writings here, as a rule, and so the
> fact that you are not amused is a good start, in my opinion. and no, i do
> not see the Metaphysics of Quality as a liberation from subject/object
> metaphysics. to my way of thinking, that is an impossible thing. we are
> bound to subject/object thinking by the very way we perceive reality.
Please disregard that glib formulation of mine. The MOQ is a
liberation from subject-object METAPHYSICS, but not from S-O "logic"
(or "reason") as Q-Intellect!!!!. Don't you see the enormous
difference; SOM means that the S-O split is fundamental AS IT IS!
while S-O as Q-Intellect means that we can keep it as an useful tool
The most powerful, but "disarmed" safely as part of the static
hierarchy. This difference you will hopefully acknowledge, because
if you......
> do not see the Metaphysics of Quality as a liberation from subject/object
> metaphysics. to my way of thinking, that is an impossible thing. we are
> bound to subject/object thinking by the very way we perceive reality
.......I fail to understand what you find useful with the MOQ. To
replace SOM is its first "objective". But I do hope you see my point
above.
> i disagree with your reasoning in condemning the recent posts on zen,
> spiders and instinct and i disagree with your siding with Keith, Horse and
> Mary. i am still at a loss to answer Keiths latest post to me after i
> pointed out how similar his cybernetics contribution was to my own way of
> thinking. in fact i see no way of even answering it.
> i am also not so sure that Pirsig could not be described in the same way
you
> describe Sheldrake. for what is Dynamic Quality if not mysticism? and as
for
> any physicists not believing in forces and particles having any existence,
> again i disagree. i would point you to a wonderful little book called "The
> Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics" by Irving Stein,
recommended
> by my friend Doug Renselle. it is is fascinating little book that will
shed
> much light on the concepts of objects as we understand them in our
reality.
At the metaphysical plane we are all "mystics", but - to me - the
MOQ makes sense of experience without the paradoxes that SOM
forces us to despair over or circumvent. I don't scoff at Sheldrake,
only point out that he is no MOQist and as such has to invoke
"mystical" forces to his theory..
LITHIEN. You wrote:
> i do not characterize Zen as spiritualization. what exactly do you
> so vehemently protest about? could you explain it to me in simple
> terms. are you alledging that SOM thinking is brought about by zen?
Sorry if I sounded gruff, but we can stand a little edge to our
discussion :-). Apologies all the same. My idea is: Before Pirsig zen
was one of the few ways to perceive a non-SOM world, but afterwards
such a perception is established in our Western culture with a
Western vocabulary, so zen becomes superfluous AS A PHILOSOPHY.
Really, it was never a philosophy in Eastern tradition except an
exercise, but imported onto our SOM steeped culture it became a
THEORY.
> on the contrary, zen cuts across the intellect level like a
> razor-sharp blade and allows one to respond to reality in an
> instinctive manner that would eliminate SOM. this is because the
> subject and the object temporarily become one. which is the best
> one can do in this physical manifestation. otherwise we would be
> insane. which btw is what pirsig alludes to with Lila's other
> reality and his own when he became Phaedrus.
"Zen cuts across the intellect level like a razor-sharp blade....etc"
The static intellectual level (Q-Intellect) is NOT the intellect
of SOM. The former is subject-object logic while the latter is
"thinking itself" or "mind". The razor-cut is made in the MOQ
by replacing the S-O division with the DQ-SQ one. After that
everything is changed, no more cutting is needed!!!
I don't disagree for one moment with what you you say, but we need no
more "zen" theory (that the zen masters had to concoct when coming
here trying to convey their wisdom to the Western mind) SOM is
eliminated as a fundamental permanent split by the first MOQ axiom.
However, zen as an exercise to achieve "peace of mind" is very much
needed and wanted...in the same way as it is practised in the East.
> p.s - you didnt sound too friendly to me...friendly bo.
Again, apologies.
Bodvar
PS This is no unfriendliness or mockery, but couldn't you check
your flow of all sorts of mail. Html and repetitions of the same
letters (I guess it was accidental:-)) With the present flow it is
just impossible to search through the maze. Please.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST