From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 00:08:35 BST
Bo, Squonk, Scott, all,
Scott:
> In any case, the MOQ describes *everything* as a relationship between DQ and Static patterns. So how do you distinguish intellect from everything else? You said in your previous post that "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ". But Pirsig says (Ch. 29):
>
> "What the Metaphysics of Quality adds to James's pragmatism and radical empiricism is the idea that the primal reality from which subjects and objects sprang is *value*."
>
> Note that he is not denying the existence of subjects and objects, only noting that they are derived existences. *Like everything else*. My claim that the S/O divide is the start of the independent intellectual level is consistent with this. It is like saying that the biological level starts with DNA. It emphatically does not claim that the S/O divide is absolute.
Steve:
The folowing from p138 of Lila relates to the primacy of subjects and objects:
"But it is not until the baby is several months old that he will begin to really understand enough about that enormously complex correlation of sensations and boudaries and desires called an *object* to be able to reach for one. This object will not be a primary experience. It will be a complex pattern of static values *derived* from primary experience.
Once the baby has made a complex pattern of values called an object and found this pattern to work well he quickly develops a skill and speed at jumping through the chain of deductions that produced it, as though it were a single jump. ...[goes on to compare to driving]...One uses these complex patterns the same way one uses a car, without thinking about them. Only when the shift doesn't work or an "object" turns out to be an illusion is one forced to become aware of the deductive process. This is why we think of subjects and objects as primary. We can' remember that period of our lives when they were anything else."
I'm at the beach and don't have much time to comment, but I think there is much in that quote about the S/O level idea and patterns of value v types of people.
Does anyone want to say what type of pattern Pirsig refers to with this "complex pattern of values called an object"?
Is the baby an intellectual type of person?
Does the baby participate in intellectual patterns?
Was this baby reaching for an object because his culture had already forced an SOM on him? Do babies in some cultures not make subject/object distinctions?
I say 'no.' To me this quote suggests that the subject/object distinction is one that babies and even animals make without thinking. The deductions Pirsig is talking about are not to be taking literally since he says it is done without thinking. The S/O does not mark the start of the intellectual level. A subject/object metaphysics is a different story. It's not the same as making a subject/object distinction which my biological dog seems pretty good at.
Thanks,
Steve
>
> From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
> Date: 2003/07/12 Sat PM 01:38:15 CDT
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Subject: MD The start of the fourth level (again)
>
> Squonk,
>
> (I have replaced the subject line, since this is not about racism.)
>
> [Squonk:] The MoQ, however, describes intellect and intelligence as a relationship between DQ and Static patterns, and as DQ is undefined, there is no definition of intellect outside the relationship. The relationship is derived from an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.
>
> So you have decided to improve Pirsig's MOQ by subsuming ethics under aesthetics, like Oscar Wilde? I thought you disapproved of such improvements.
>
> In any case, the MOQ describes *everything* as a relationship between DQ and Static patterns. So how do you distinguish intellect from everything else? You said in your previous post that "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ". But Pirsig says (Ch. 29):
>
> "What the Metaphysics of Quality adds to James's pragmatism and radical empiricism is the idea that the primal reality from which subjects and objects sprang is *value*."
>
> Note that he is not denying the existence of subjects and objects, only noting that they are derived existences. *Like everything else*. My claim that the S/O divide is the start of the independent intellectual level is consistent with this. It is like saying that the biological level starts with DNA. It emphatically does not claim that the S/O divide is absolute.
>
> [Squonk:] The derivation began at a time no one can identify, but appears, from linguistic evidence, to have begun with social ritual.
>
> Pirsig says it started with finding better ways to survive.
>
> [Squonk] Thus, using language to symbolise the wonder of social aesthetic is not social aesthetic - it is intellect making its first foray into Human life.
>
> In Hindu mythology there is the claim that language developed out of music. I think this is a great notion, though I don't know how to confirm it in any way. I think you are doing the same sort of thing here. You have made aesthetics into a god, so you see everything in aesthetic terms. My question, though, is when did people start identifying their thinking as originating in themselves SO THAT they could wonder at social aesthetic (or survival or anything else) and not simply be driven along. As long as that hasn't happened, it is meaningless to try to ascribe intellect as an independent MOQ level, as one that can be in conflict with the social level (see Pirsig's quote below). Looking at the difference between the language of Homer and that of Plato, one can see that it started happening about 500 BC in the West. Similar comparisons, where we can make them (that is, where we have written records), show a similar development in other cultures, for example between the Upanishads and the earlier Vedas. Here
's Pirsig, Lila, ch. 24:
>
> "The doctrine of scientific disconnections from social morals goes all the way back to the ancient Greek belief that thought is independent of society, that it stands alone, born without parents. Ancient Greeks such as Socrates and Pythagoras paved the way for the fundamental principle behind science: that truth stands independently of social opinion."
>
> [Squonk:] Skutvik never discusses art or aesthetics - he does not have the conceptual vocabulary to handle it. He does not have the conceptual vocabulary to handle it because his own definitions negate them. It is little wonder when it comes to the East, Skutvik blithely talks of, 'these people' as if they are over there somewhere in a box.
>
> Translation: You think only art and aesthetics is important, or maybe you wish to redefine DQ as Art. So anyone who discusses things in a larger context is a bad person. That is bad logic. On a more specific note note, could you unpack the claim that "his own definitions negate them"? I suspect that it is only your own definitions that cause you to say this.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
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 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 00:20:08 BST