Re: MD Lila's Child

Date: Sat Aug 02 2003 - 19:56:53 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD Intellect and its critics"

    Hello again Johnny
    On 1 Aug. you said:

    > 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?

    It was definitely the SOM way I was presenting and it has a long
    record of influence. Look to Khoo's post to see how the subject/object
    metaphysics influenced what he calls the "Abrahamic Faiths"

    > > Khoo:
    > > At which point did the Western and Eastern traditions diverge ? The
    > > Subject Object Metaphysics from Greece gave rise to the "structured"
    > > nature of Western religion: Christainity, Judaism, and I would include
    > > here, Islam as well which make up the Abrahamic faiths, from Testaments 1,
    > > 2 & 3 respectively. Subject object logic has been also thoroughly treated
    > > in both Hindu and Buddhist metaphysics( the Abhidhamma) pre-dating the
    > > Greeks but was never emphasised, all for good reason, including the
    > > understanding that it would not be "salvific" (thanks, Scott) if pursued.
    > > The Hindu/Buddhist cosmology extended into China as well and permeated
    > > Asian civilisation to such an extent that it was not possible for a Indian
    > > or Chinese "Plato" or "Aristotle" to position a structured subject-object
    > > metaphysics as the primary philosophy for the East.

    Johhny continued:
    > I was hoping to address where ideas come from, cause I think you are
    > stuck thinking that they come from the mind.

    Me stuck?! It is the SOM which is stuck and I just tried to convey its
    view. However, from a moqish point of view sounds OK.

    > 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.

    The above sounds terribly complicated - a child is supposed to
    understand the Quality world. What is an idea? An intellectual
    pattern? If so social reality (before the intellectual level) also employed
    "ideas" - not neessarily of the Eiffel Tower, but of their world.

    > 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.

    Subjetivism comes because SOM says that reality is divided along
    this subjective/objective fault.It has no place in the MOQ ...except as
    the VALUE of the S/O divide, stripped of its 'M' naturally.

    > 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.

    As I see it Pirsig has for some strange reason found that an idealist
    approach will pay off in scientific circles and the argument that
    everything is "human specific" will align with Quantum Mech. but
    anyway is that another variant of the "all in our minds" . Calling it
    "patterns of Morality" doesn't do any difference: All is locked up inside
    the human reality from which nothing can escape.

    You and Rick and everyone else probably think me completely dense
    who don't see that everything is human-related, but I have been there
    years and years ago. It is also "obvious" that everything we say is just
    words, this is what every philosopher - starting from SOM's premises -
    arrives at. The counter-argument is that saying so is also words and
    one is soon on a slippery slope that sends a thinker of integrity into
    the lunatic hospital. This was P. of ZAMM's plight, but while there he
    arrived at the insight that QUALITY was the origin of this impossible
    "human reality/the rest of the world" duality - which comes in many
    varieties because it is SOM itself. Therefore I am aghast that Pirsig -
    of all people - lapses back into it.

    > 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.

    You obviously don't understand. Look Pirsig says that everything is
    human-related, but suddenly he says hat Dynamic Quality is NOT
    human-related. Great! That's what he should have maintained all the
    time and dropped the mind-definition of intellect and that MOQ is an
    intellectual pattern, which sends DQ into the human-relation black
    hole again!

    Again, if ideas mean "intellectual patterns" to you, they come from
    Society. That is the MOQ explanation and it is rock solid.
    In my opinion.

    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 - 19:57:50 BST