From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 16:52:53 BST
Scott and Sam.
My policy of "making friends and infuencing" people hasn't exactly
succeeded, but your post of 30 August still sounds familiar (you wrote
to Sam)
> What I think it undermines is not SOM as being superceded by the MOQ,
> but the S/O divide as being superceded. Yes, SOM did not appear until
> the 17th century, in tandem with the scientific revolution. But the
> S/O divide had gradually been developing since long before then. Where
> Pirsig goes wrong, in my opinion, is that, while SOM is a high quality
> intellectual static pattern of value, the S/O divide is not, and he
> does not make that distinction. Since SOL is a given in just about
> every thought presented here and everywhere, there is no way we can
> say we have superceded it. SOL is just "there are things independent
> of me" (like tigers), and though we can claim that Quality "precedes"
> the divide, that does not make the divide go away.
...if my sorting out of (your meaning) of where Pirsig "goes wrong" is
correct I hope you say that the S/O divide is of "high quality" and the
SOM is not. But we obviously don't see the same SOL. The "self
different from non-self" is so primary that I cant understand your using
it in this context. Even the proverbial amoeba knows that, while the
ability to look objectively upon things - the sceptical enquirer so to say
- had his birth when the old Greek thinkers started to look for a
permancy beyond the myths. I agree with the SO ...M as a post-
cartian development, but its cornerstone was laid by the Greeks.
Maybe your "things independent of me" is meant in this capacity and
not in the biological me/not me sense ...hopefully?
> This is why I say that the S/O divide should be seen as a case of the
> DQ/SQ divide.
The subjective part of the SOM = DQ and the objective part = SQ
makes the MOQ into some Squonktailian rubbish that there are
thirteen to a dozen of these days ....even worse than making the
MOQ - DQ included - a STATIC intellectual pattern.
> It's too ingrained in us to be called a *static* pattern
> of value.
I see your point here, but it's the fallacy of mixing the biological
self/not self into the subject/object divide.
> Instead it is how the DQ/SQ divide takes form when we think,
> perceive, feel, and act, in our current stage of consciousness.
Rather how reality is perceived from the curent intellectual stage. At
the biological stage we perceive by senses, at the social stage we
perceive by feelings (emotions) and at the intellect we perceive by
reason . "Consciousness"? We haven't reached that stage yet dear
Scott :-)
> Even
> in mathematics, where the thoughts are not SOL-based, there is
> nevertheless a perceived difference between the mathematician and the
> mathematics.
As I see it math is intelligence/aesthetics/intuition (the dynamics at all
levels) and has nothing to do with the SOL. A Stonehenge culture
sage doing the calculations behind the placement of the stone circle -
to conform with the heavenly phenomenons - had nothing to do with
the Q-intellect.
Only in peak experiences is the divide momentarily
> overcome.
Do you have any first-hand knowledge?
Sincerely
Bo
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 Aug 31 2003 - 17:00:22 BST