Re: MD liberals, conservatives & suffering

Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 16:52:53 BST

  • Next message: "MD Reality, relationships and DQ."

    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 What I think it undermines is not SOM as being superceded by the MOQ,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 but the S/O divide as being superceded.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 say we have superceded it.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?


    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 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 17:00:22 BST