Jonathan B. Marder wrote on Mon, 4 Jan 1999
> (CROSS-REFERENCING EXPT. CONTINUES)
...snip
Hi Jonathan.
This was an interesting method of editing a post, maybe it's the
way to make it through the maze. I know that my own collective
sweep-ups makes it hard to follow threads (as Maggie pointed out),
but I don't really know what else to do except delivering five or ten
messages a day. From your excellent post I will only extract this
portion because it highlights our difference that I believe (?) is in
the process of being resolved. Phew!
> BODVAR
> > Here is the crux of the matter: "Abstraction of any pattern..." as
> > opposed to its concreteness: mind opposed to matter. I feel my cheeks
> > grow stiff from harping on the danger of superimposing Intellect's
> > subject-objectivization on to the other levels
> > In (my) MOQ context there is no s-o (abstract-concrete) division
> > outside of Intellect.
> Interesting that you used the prefixed SUPERimposing. Does that imply
> that you already concede that the MoQ levels are Intellectually imposed
> on raw undivided reality? I fully agree with that! Also with your
> analysis of this as mind vs. matter.
> Apparently, you also concede that this is Pirsig's view:-
"Super" was possibly superfluous, but that doesn't mean much.
...the MoQ levels are Intellectually imposed...you say. If I say "not
wholly" you will probably call it foul play or simply illogical, but
as my thesis is that Intellect (capital 'I' means Q-intellect) is SO
itself, it can't be "persuaded" to accept a new non-SO division; the
MOQ must be something trying to escape the limitations of Intellect.
> BODVAR on 29th Dec in
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0401.html
> <<<However, in an earlier letter to Anthony (McWatt) he [Pirsig] said
> that he equated Intellect with "the mental".>>>
> I know that Pirsig himself would never have called it "mind vs. matter",
> but this is IMHO because he wants to distance himself from the idea of
> such a split within (or beneath) the primacy of the S/O division.
I have admitted that I don't have Pirsig's approval of my
SOLAQI, but are you saying here that mind-matter is NOT part of the
subject-object complex? Objections my honor! M-m is one of the
innumerable offshoots of the primary split (somewhere P. even calls
SOM "mind-matter metaphysics"). That is why I feel it wrong (by
Pirsig) to equate Intellect with "the mental" knowing the heavy SOM
load this expression carries (mental-corporeal). In the same letter
to Anthony he also said that the term "mind" should better be
avoided. But to "avoid" S-O is next to impossible.
No, I maintain that only by seeing whole S/O complex ....including
mind-matter, mental-corporeal, psychic-physical, soul-body etc.....as
the Intellectual level of the MOQ the paradoxes are removed. Much in
the same way as the famous Greek paradoxes of old were. Not by
applying the logic which created them, but by inventing a new
"calculus" like Newton (possibly Leibniz) did.
Are we at it again?
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 - 16:02:48 BST