From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Aug 02 2003 - 01:51:53 BST
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?
Thanks,
Steve
> 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*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
>
> 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 : Sat Aug 02 2003 - 01:51:07 BST