BO ASKS JONATHAN TO CLARIFY ONE POINT AND ASKS STRUAN TO CLARIFY
HIS WHOLE ATTITUDE TO THE MOQ.
"Jonathan B. Marder" wrote on Thu, 7 Jan 1999:
> Hi Bodvar and LilaQs,
....snip....
(Bo=>>. Jonathan=>)
>> 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.
> I get the point, but I don't think anyone really thinks like that.
> Einstein said:
"The intellect has little to do on the road
to discovery. There comes a leap in
consciousness, call it Intuition or what
you will, the solution comes to you and
you don't know how or why."
How the ...should anyone think like that before Pirsig??? Einstein
did not know- or speak as a MOQian, yet he hints to something that
wants to escape intellect. However, in (his) SOM there is no such
possibility except appealing to "mystical" entities like intuition or
inspiration. Fair enough, but not very fertile
> That's a major theme of my forum essay "Zen and the Art of Science"
> which I have now put on my own web site at
> http://indycc1.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder/Science_Philosophy/Zen.htm
> prefaced with the Einstein quote.
Sorry for not having read it. That's my "sin", I speak of the need
for essays and summaries, but don't even read what is available.
Except jumping up on my soap box and deliver monologues.
>> 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.>>>
> I agree that Pirsig says that the Cartesian Mind-Matter split goes
> hand-in-hand with SOM. That's why he avoids using the terms. But I think
> there are other formulations of M-M which are not necessarily SOM.
Definitely, Seeing the S-O split as Q-Intellect is such a non-SOM
way.
>> 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.
> If ALL is based on matter, then mind is also based on matter. That's why
> mind-matter sounds so much like SOM. MIND is the matter which functions
> as SUBJECT, MATTER is the matter which functions as OBJECT.
I have done my best, but I fail to see your reasoning here. " If ALL
is based on matter, .....etc"????? How can that be derived from my
proposition? This is so enigmatic that I will await your explanation
before proceeding
See you.
_________________________________________________________
"Struan Hellier" wrote on Tue, 5 Jan 1999
> Greetings,
> Your summation of materialism and idealism is close to mine but with
> important differences. Idealism does not claim that matter is an
> illusion (at least no more than the MoQ does) and materialism does
> not claim that mind is an illusion (ditto) and equally neither has
> to see itself as primary if primary is understood in the temporal
> sense. It is consistent (though not necessary and also quite
> unlikely) to claim that they arose together. If primary is
> understood in the sense of 'most important' then the use of the word
> in this context is still debatable - for example, a materialist
> might think mind more important in the sense that if he didn't have
> one then he couldn't understand matter.
Hi Struan
>From your reply to David I (think I) see the meaning of ..mysticism a
subset of materialism.....but that wasn't clearly formulated in your
first post, and I still a little odd.
Re. the above paragraph directed to me. Phew! You'll make it far in
philosophologist circles. No mocking, but this sounds like the
tidbits that Donny has served from Hegel and is what gives philosophy
its bad reputation. "....a materialist might think mind more
important in the sense....etc". With all respect! Perhaps
there are materialists of your non-trivial kind, but except for
Struan Hellier I have never met any. So I think we stick to the
trivial mr Smith sort who entertains a materialism more like my
definition and who is married to a Mrs Smith who may be a
trivial idealist.
The thing is that even if the two have opposed each other hotly
(until the MOQ) they are each other's intimate ally much like the
believer and the sceptic who perform a great show of refuting each
other but fail to see that they need each other by sharing the same
fundament. The MoQ is a new fundament that has nothing to say to
either except as seeing them as two branches that for a long time
believed they were the main trunk.
I had expected Donny Palmgren to come swooping out of the sun with
blazing guns, in your support, but he has fallen silent.
> The important point about any non-trivial and coherent materialism
> is that matter can exist on its own while mind must also have a
> physical aspect. In other words every phenomena MUST have a physical
> aspect but in addition MAY have a mental aspect. A coherent idealism
> must hold the reverse to be true otherwise it can easily be shown to
> be false and/or trivial. As an example, a materialist would claim
> that an emotion such as love (no I must resist) IS a mental
> phenomena but that it cannot exist without its physical side, id
> est, the physical brain.
It's no use Struan, this is just more of the same, and what is the
purpose? If it is to impress this is not the forum. We know what a
logjam philosophy has been since Kant made the mind/matter
irreconcilable realms. I'm not saying that Kant was wrong; he
merely brought SOM to confront itself. A great job. If you see the
MOQ as something that leaves all this quandary behind why keep up
this subject-object ...mental-physical division; it has no place in
the MOQ because it rejects the subject-object division as the first
metaphysical split.
I can't be nice and polite no more than I could be in our first
encounter or at our Sperry debate at the said site, you just scare
off people who believe that this is deep thinking and this fellow
must say something important. If the MOQ is anything it is a
liberation from academic philosopohology that has no goal except
producing hot air.
I do of course hope that you stay, but give us your analysis of
Pirsig's approach to reality. The below interests me particularly.
> Thirdly Pirsig does not seek to eliminate matter. "Matter is contained
> in static intellectual patterns," (Lila pg 185 Black Swan edition 1991).
> Pirsig contends that both the materialist and idealist schools are correct
> but they are subsumed within an overall Quality.
Yes he does by equating Inorganic & Organic with "objects" and
Society & Intellect with "subjects", and here I have forwarded
a "stronger" interpretation than P. himself, namely that the
whole subject-objectivization is Intellect the whole Intellect and
nothing but Intellect. Did you ever pass a verdict on it Struan?
Yours, but not in agreement.
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