Re: MD Lila's Child

From: Steve Peterson (
Date: Sat Aug 02 2003 - 01:51:53 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD Lila's Child"

    Hi Bo, Squonk, and Johnny, all,

    Would you agree that the MOQ replaces separate subjective and objective
    realities that the SOMist must constantly shift between with a single
    reality that incorporates the two as on a continuum of experience that is
    entirely consistent with the experience of others to experience that is not
    at all consistent with the experience of others?


    > Hi Bo,
    >> Hi Johnny
    >> 31 July you wrote:
    >>> I'm not prepared to address your "SOM Idealism" concept (I thought the
    >>> two were exclusive) and was also confused by your "Idealism =
    >>> Subjective" statement in your last post to Joe. Could you explain the
    >>> "half" of SOM that is idealism to me, please?
    >> We have the idealism/materialism camps, which says respectively that
    >> mind creates matter or matter creates mind. The "create" term
    >> perhaps sounds a bit "magical", so there are a lot of more lenient
    >> varieties f.ex. scientific materialism that merely says that when matter
    >> (nerve systems in this case) gets complex enough it starts generating
    >> an illusion of consciousness. What the more "lenient" idealists say I
    >> haven't a ready example of, but not to get lost the gist of it is that the
    >> idealist/materialist chasm is a fall-out of the mind/matter enigma which
    >> is the fall-out of the mother lode: Subject/Object Metaphysics.
    > I see what you are saying. But I don't think Idealism is the same as
    > subjective reality, or that Idealism is "all in the mind", though that would
    > be an SOM way of (mis)seeing it. Aren't the Ideals of Idealism usually
    > thought to be in "God" (Berkely, Edwards) or in Morality (Pirsig, Edwards),
    > and manifest both the mind and the world the mind experiences?
    >>> But regarding the Pirsig quote I have a big question. He says the
    >>> objects grow out of ideas, not the other way around. Where do these
    >>> ideas come from. Why do I have the idea that the Eiffel Tower is in
    >>> Paris? If I go there, I suppose I will see it, and it will look like
    >>> the idea I have of it, and grow out of the idea. What if I had no
    >>> idea about it, had never even heard of the Eiffel Tower, and went to
    >>> Paris. Would I not also see it, same as if I had the idea?
    >> Johnny, I'm NOT with Pirsig here, but let me repeat that it is SOM
    >> which is the source of the enigma (if the Eiffel Tower is a figment of
    >> our mind or if the physical tower imprints itself on the our senses and
    >> creates an image in our mind). A silly notion that every toddler know is
    >> idiocy, yet before the MOQ pointed to a SOM nobody knew of any
    >> SOM and everybody was forced into believing that reality was split
    >> from the start in this subjective/objective way ...For the religious
    >> ...something God had built into his creation for us to ponder his
    >> mysterious ways. This still applies, except for this small group no-one
    >> know of any SOM ;-)
    >> This is why I am so exasperated by the annotating Pirsig. Why does
    >> he not heed his own MOQ? Follow my reasoning: After having
    >> reached at the Quality conclusion: That Value is the innermost reality
    >> which in the known manner gives rise to the static hierarchy which at
    >> the intellectual stage divides reality in the said S/O way ..... After
    >> this
    >> solid metaphysical groundwork to start about "objects growing out of
    >> ideas ..etc." is to return to SOM's idealist position which is just as
    >> poisonous as the materialist to the MOQ. Why does Pirsig do this?
    > I was hoping to address where ideas come from, cause I think you are stuck
    > thinking that they come from the mind. The ideas don't come randomly from a
    > person's head. The idea of the Eiffel Tower is a static pattern that exists
    > in Morality. Morality then creates the heads (also static patterns - it
    > creates the heads via the patterns of people giving birth and education) and
    > also the ideas the heads have, including the Eiffel Tower that is
    > experienced as real. That's why we all see the Eiffel Tower when we look
    > there, because there is one Morality. Subjectivism comes because a single
    > pattern (us) does not interact with all the other patterns that exist in
    > Morality, but only those that it is morally has to interact with. So we
    > have incomplete subjective views of reality, but still views that come from
    > the one morality and must be consistent with it.
    >> I have wondered ever since this group started to throw the LC
    >> annotations around. I found the said # 102 in which it sounds like a
    >> strategy to get the MOQ aligned with Quantum Physics, but as said
    >> find more of this "all in our mind" stuff in LC - most pronounced as in
    >> the # 37
    >> * "Anders is slipping into the materialist assumption that thre is a
    >> huge world out there that has nothing to do with people. The
    >> MOQ says that this is a high quality assumption, within limits. one
    >> of its is that without humans to make it, that assumption cannot
    >> be made. It is a human specific assumption. Strictly speaking
    >> Anders have never heard of and will never hear of anything that
    >> isn't human specific."
    >> Materialist?! As if THAT is any threat to the Q-idea? The idealist view
    >> that Pirsig himself brings is doubly harmful. He does not say "in our
    >> mind", but "human specific" spells the same. Maybe I lose you here
    >> Johnny, but it all relates to the definition of intellectual level as
    >> "mind/thinking" and that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern, i.e: "in our
    >> minds" ....and why I so vehemently opposes that definition and
    >> maintains that intellect is the S/O divide itself!
    > I'm not sure human specific spells the same as in our mind. Again, it has
    > to do with the origin of the pattern or assumption (expectation?). In our
    > mind sounds like "we make it up without regard for anything" and "human
    > specific" seems to mean that the patterns of Morality are a human morality,
    > shared patterns only among humans.
    >> One last criticism of the above annotation: Here Pirsig [after his own
    >> great insight that Value creates the mind/matter universe) re-
    >> introduces the mind half in the "human specific" or "everything human
    >> assumptions" forms ...If so THEN "human assumptions" is a new
    >> innermost reality and he may as well make a "Meatphysics of Human
    >> Assumptions": Dynamic Human Assumptions and Static Human
    >> Assumptions of which the first is "Inorganic Human Assumption"
    >> ...and so on. which is good enough but QUALITY IS BETTER!!
    > I agree, Morality is better.
    >> Conclusion: The Eiffel Tower's reality enigma is a SOM figment, but
    >> why Pirsig keeps talking the way he does in LC has become the new
    >> enigma. However, this sentence (from # 102) sets everything straight
    >>> "Except in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is observed always
    >>> involves an interaction with ideas that have been previously
    >> assumed"
    >> Sincerely
    >> Bo
    > Again it's DQ to the rescue from every conundrum. I think the thing that
    > sets everything straight is to recognize where ideas come from.
    > Johnny
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 02 2003 - 01:51:07 BST