BO CONTINUES HIS ROUND-UP OF THIS MONTH'S TOPIC, AND ADDRESSES DONNY,
FINTAN AND JONATHAN.
DONNY!
In a post of Dec18 you wrote (to me):
> First of all, to say "mysticism is the child of SOM" makes no
> logical sense.
It does if you would follow my reasoning.
> We agree, do we not, that "SOM" means: the knowing
> subject and the known object are ontallogically seperate,
> irreducable entites, and everything that really exists must be one
> or the other. That's what most of us agreed on in the past. Now how
> exactly does that declaration imply mysticism -- which as Pirsig
> defines it means something like: There is a part of reality which is
> inherintly unknowable.
Yes, that's SOM all right, but my understanding (of the SOLAQI idea)
is that SO-Metaphysics is the misconception that the subject-object
division is fundamental, in your words: "... ontallogically separate,
irreducible entities, and everything that really exists
must be one or the other"......while (the SOLAQI) says that the S-O
division is the Intellectual level of the MOQ which means that it is
of high STATIC value, but have no significance in the overall Quality
picture. In the same way that social value is important within its
jurisdiction, but doesn't apply in the overall DQ-SQ context.
> Second: Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, Vadanta and
> many othet Eastern "philosophies" are mystical (as defined above) or
> at least have a mystical componant. Are Buddhism, Taoism, etc. all
> examples of SOM (even though they clearly don't fit the definition
> of SOM given above)?
No, they are not, but the problem is that when we approach the East
we (most often) do so with the SOM glasses on (outside the LS, few
know Pirsig); subject-object metaphysics is reality itself! And when
Easterners try to address us, they have to use our vocabulary (see
below about Alan Watts).
> Third: Mysticism cannot be reduced to New Age
> because the New Age movement is a (bad) mix of appropreated Eastern
> thought, psudo-science, Western (mostly Christian) theism, and Pop
> Psychology that arose in the last 15-or-so years. Mystical
> philosophies -- on the other hand -- have been around for literally
> thousands of years.
Not the mysticism of the East and those who see the Quality
idea, but I'm talking about the pseudo-variant that you describe so
well.
Lower down in that same post you admonish me for using the term
idealism wrongly and for not challenging your logic here, but I accuse
you of not having understood the subject-object/dynamic-static(value)
shift, once that is brought to bear I don't know where to place
idealism except as a fallout of SOM's mind-matter pair.
Still further down you quote me saying:
> > Yes, from day one I have said that everything is mind (mysticism)
>> or nothing is......
and go on:
> Okay, Bo; that's your definition of "mysticism": 'Everything is
> mind.' When you use the word we will assume that's what you mean. But for
> the love of intellectual (and social) quality, please recognise that's not
> what many of us mean when we use that word (including Pirsig). Otherwise
> the discusion goes nowhere. If you're unsure what someone means by a term
> they are using... Hey, take a hint from Ken... Ask them!
I have tried various methods of meeting halfway those who can't let
go of the "mind" concept, and the quoted one was one of my first
attempts, but I regret using it again. The MOQ shift from S-O to
Dynamic value- Static value is all the mysticism I need, while
"Everything is mind" gives me the exhausted feeling of old when
trying to understand texts on Zen. For instance Alan Watts' "The Way
of Zen" and reading sentences like this (page 92 Pelican paperback):
"According to the Yogacara the world of form is 'cittamara' =
mind only, or 'vijnaptimatra' = representation only. This view
seems to have very close resemblance to Western philosophies of
subjective idealism, in which the external and material world
is regarded as a projection of the mind. However, there seem to
be differences between the two points of view. Here, as always,
the Mahayana is not so much a theoretical and speculative
construction as an account of an inner experience, and a mean
of awakening the experience in others. Furthermore the word
'citta' is not precisely equivalent to our 'mind'. Western
thought tends to define mind by opposition to matter, and to
consider matter, not so much as 'measure' as the solid stuff
which is measured. Measure itself - abstraction - is for the
West more of the nature of mind, since we tend to think of mind
and spirit as more abstract than concrete."
Watts is a splendid popularisator, but one senses the difficulties he
has in conveying the nuances. I had (dated 1967) underlined it
heavily so I obviously sensed something of importance, but not until
Pirsig did I see the meaning
In your message of Dec.24 you wrote:
> Let me explane that, how I see it, you don't have social values
> in wolf packs or ape tribes... probably not in early cro-magnon tribes, but
> I'm not an anthropologist.
> These criters have "social groups" and "pack order," but I don't
> think that's what costitutes the social level. In LILA, RMP talks about
> the social level in terms of "the Giant." That's the key idea. Bodvar is
> hitting on it when he speaks of sacroficing the parts for the whole... but
> these criters (wolves, etc.) are worried about the species, continuing
> there genetic line, procreation... This is still Darwinian values. Even
> when ape tribes fight over turf that's a fight concerning food, survivle
> and ultimatly survival (and procreation) of the fitest, you see?let me explain....
Throughout our acquaintance I have forwarded cooperation among
animals - even insects- as budding social value, and you have as
often countered it as not proper such: mere pack order. I have backed
off re. insects, but I can't help feel that your society is far too
advanced, the human variant, already heavily overlaid by Intellectual
values. I think that ALL moral levels when examined deeply enough
merges with its parent level. Anthill and beehive societies are
blending with (biological) societies of cells, but at the ape stage,
it has developed to a "discipline" in a way that is not necessary
among ants or body cells.
***************************************************
FINTAN.
First of all thanks for the Crusoe article. It was good but
hardly relevant regarding the MOQ. Robinson Crusoe was the
Eighteenth century's dream of the enlightened man going to the most
remote places winning over ignorance and backwardness. This has
nothing to do with Quality's Intellectual level and I just can't
understand how you got the idea that MOQ is idolizing intellect.
MOQ's great achievement is of seeing Intellect as a mere static
level, "above" Society admittedly, but subordinate to the overall
quality picture.
Your Shakespearian play also reveals this misconception. Shakespeare
was part of the Renaissance (of Intellect after the Medieval Social
hibernation. A feeling of seeing through the Church's myths, but
also a feeling of seeing too much, of loosing touch with reality: the
world an illusion: a dream; a stage .....full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing. So for you to rehash this AS A REVELATION you
are three hundred years too late. No, there is nothing illusionary
about the MOQ world.
Inner and outer realities! Us the creators of our own private
plays!! Nothing can be farther from the MOQ idea. It's the problem
when Westerners try to be "mystics" and understand the veil of Maya.
All right Fintan, you have never pretended to understand ...you just
FEEL ....that return to the social religious level will save us. And,
phew, don't we all have our moments of temptation?
***************************************************************
JONATHAN.
You wrote (Dec.23):
> To BODVAR:
> This sorting out of useful from non-useful data at the Q-event is where
> we see the first possibility for a subject-object definition. Certain
> data become the definition of the OBJECT. Any data
> not-part of that definition are not objective. The "subjective" data are
> those which relate to existence of the object pattern, but are not part
> of its definition.
I may drive you nuts by my refusal of the ZAMM as a source for
discussion of the MOQ, but the Q-event is not mentioned in LILA as
far as I know . I may have slept during class, but .... sorting out
of useful from non-useful etc...have passed me by as a possible
subject-object origin. However, it sticks like glue to my memory that
you made your entry with a "language" piece and in my opinion that's
a more likely candidate. Language IS the general vs the particular:
(abstract) classes of (concrete) objects something that led to the
convition that the abstract (subjective) being fundamentally
different from the concrete (objective). The S-O was established.
> The SO division is so fundamental in pattern perception that it
> dominates metaphysical thought. Usually we perceive object patterns so
> fast (by rote) that we forget that we could have perceived a different
> pattern by filtering the data differently.
Yes, this is an important insight.
> Bodvar, I now see that it is imperative for someone to properly define
> Intellect. My own quasi-definitions are for Intellect as a NON-level.
> Pirsig didn't provide a definition for the Intellectual Level and I
> regard his examples as social values.
> The only thing approaching an Int-level definition is your own SOLAQI
> which is why my comments on subject-object division are addressed to
> you.
Pirsig's relationship with his own idea is of course intimate and he
does possibly not see any difficulties. In a letter to me he said
that he did not see what problem the - then - SAIOM (SOM as
Intellect of MOQ) idea was supposed to solve. And when I tried to
elaborate the SOLAQI version (subject-object logic as Q-Intellect) he
said he did not want to take side in our discussion. However, in an
earlier letter to Anthony (McWatt) he said that he equated Intellect
with "the mental". So that's it, I don't in any way have his support.
I have for so long thrashed about with this my definition of
Intellect that a certain "blindness" has set in, but as you say it's
the only fully concistent one. Thanks for saying so Jonathan.
The Social component that you see in his examples of Intellect is no
great obstacle; a tenet of the MOQ is that all levels "contain" its
parent level and yet is a break with its values. However, a NON-level
is a strange phenomenon :-)
*********************************************************************
This became so ungodly long that Horse and Ken will be "treated" in a
separate post.
Till then.
Bodvar
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 - 16:02:46 BST