From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 31 2005 - 20:20:48 GMT
Hi Case
I always thought the world beyond my immediate experience was a good idea,
you see my house disappears when I go out but is always there when I get
back.
The good reason to postulate the idea of a world is the reality of patterns
that are
able to absent themselves from experience temporarily and then re-appear.
And once we get the hang of this and the reality that other people have
different
experience from ourselves, we can believe that Australia exists even though
we
only have the reports given to us by other people. Creative imagination is
the key
to transcending particular expereince. Nothing vey mysterious. Roy Bhaskar
has argued that
the concept of absence is the key to grasping the realism of transcendental
dialectical
critical realism (sort of realist Hegelian absolute idealism).
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Case" <Case@ispots.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: MD Re: Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level
> Michael,
> From my perspective you are stubbing your toe on a rock bloodied by the
> feet
> of everyone who travels this path. There is no logical way to escape the
> prison of your own mind. There are only two ways out that I can think of
> one
> is fantasy or an appeal to the "supernatural" and two is faith or the
> belief
> in something even though you have no real reason to believe it: Don Juan's
> controled folly.
> Pirsig never defined SOM well enough to make it clear whether or his was
> destroying the actually distinction between subjects and objects or just a
> particular way of thinking about them.
> To bring the problem into sharper relief, consider the Matrix. It was odd
> that the same year the Martix was released there were two other movies on
> the same theme: The 13th Floor and Existenz. Both of these showed
> realities
> inside computer games. I thought the 13th Floor was more interesting
> philosophically but Existenz was by the ever excentric David Cronenburg
> and
> had its own special appeal.
> Speculation along these line is especially interesting since some of us
> are
> traveling down the path into a cyber reality already. If you want to see a
> world composed entirely of "value", check out World of Warcraft,
> Everquest,
> Star Wars Galaxies ... These are persistant virtual worlds where
> participants interact online. Their characters grow and evolve as they
> participate in these virtual worlds. People form governments, economies,
> some of which extend beyond the virtual world. For example there is an
> exchange rate between virtual currency and real life cash.
> Also consider that the biggest advances in artificial intellegence are
> being
> made in the realm of computer gaming and that a direct digital to analog
> interface between the human brain and a computer is at least theoretically
> possible. I have never thought that the four levels thing made much sense
> at
> least as discussed in the MD but virtual reality sure seems like a 5th
> level
> to me. I am well aware that this weirdness is generally confined to sci-fi
> wackos but I would love to hear a reasoned discourse on how to escape the
> Matrix.
>
> Case
>
> Hang on, that was just the SOL, wasn't it?
>
> Pretty much. But I'm not just trying to say all the things Bo's said a
> thousand times. I'm asking a very personal question to everyone who
> rejects
> SOL. Have you seriously shed you subjectivity, in your day-to-day life? Or
> do you still experience your thinking as the product of an islanded
> subject
> (albeit an islanded subject with a million and one outside influences)?
> 'Cos
> I do.
>
> Thanks to the likes of Pirsig, we can dream up metaphysics in which the
> subject/object divide is not fundamental. We can spend as long as we like
> thinking about a time and a place in which the subject/object divide never
> existed. But we're still thinking as subjects, and any attempt to wipe
> subjectivity from one's life entirely would be a regression, not a
> progression. I'm all in favour of dissolving one's subjectivity every so
> often, in fact I think it should be done regularly, in some way or
> another.
> But to dissolve subjectivity forever would be to eradicate one of DQ's
> most
> wonderful creations, I think.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 10/30/05, Michael Hamilton <thethemichael@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'd like to recap some of the suggestions floating about on the MD
>> recently. Scott's been insisting that the thinking intellect is both
>> static and dynamic - that thinking can be a synonym of Quality. Bo,
>> meanwhile, insists on a sharp divide between "intellect" and
>> "intelligence", where "intellect" should only be used to describe the
>> peculiar brand of intelligence or thinking that has arisen with the
>> subject/object divide. Gav made the interesting suggestion that
>> intelligence, under Bo's dichotomy, could be the synonym for Quality.
>>
>> Now I'd like to ask a question to the majority on this list who accept
>> Pirsig's thesis that the subject/object divide is not fundamental to
>> reality: do you ever experience your thinking to be anything other
>> than a purely subjective activity?
>>
>> My suggestion is that, in replying "no" to this question, I place
>> myself in the 4th static level, and distinguish myself from the type
>> of intelligence that preceded intellect. My suggestion is that the
>> subject/object divide is fundamental to what we are. My suggestion is
>> that, at the 4th level, Quality manifests itself as separate
>> intelligences who feel that they are separate.
>>
>> I retract any claim that social- or mythological-level human beings
>> did not distinguish between self or other. My claim now is that they
>> differed from us in their mode of thinking, in their intelligence. The
>> difference is that they did not entirely feel it to the "their"
>> thinking, "their" intelligence, at all. As Barfield contends, they
>> felt it to be a participation - not something that springs from inside
>> some shadowy realm inside their heads, but something more like an
>> all-pervading Nous (mind) that they could tap into. Or even gods
>> talking to them. It's impossible to generalise about all 3rd-level
>> consciousness, as it must have varied quite a lot. But I think we can
>> be very specific about what distinguishes our 4th-level consciousness.
>> In a word: subjectivity.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> P.S. Reading this back, I realise my tone's quite assertive. Really,
>> I'm just trying to put my (!) thoughts into words and get these ideas
>> out there. I feel like I've encountered a few jigsaw pieces regarding
>> intellect, and I'm just trying to get them to fit together. Does the
>> picture make sense to anyone?
>>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 21:16:33 GMT