RE: MD The S/O divide

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 21:22:04 BST

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD The S/O Divide"
  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "RE: MD Forked tongue"

    Jonathan said
    S/O divide is an (intellectual) description of perception AT ALL LEVELS.
    IMHO, what Pirsig has done is to LIBERATE the S/O divide from a metaphysical
    straightjacket .... etc.

    I say
    This is exactly how I feel about Pirsig. No need to throw out the SOM babies
    with the bathwater, 'cos Pirisg has given us a framwork within which their
    true (static/dynamic/interactive) nature can be recognised and used.

    I also say
    It is interesting to note the (real) difficulty in separating the social
    from the intellectual, when the intellectual perception becomes shared
    culturally. I believe I understand the intended distiction between social
    patterns and intellectual patterns, but it is very easy to slip into
    thinking of culturally engrained intellectual patterns as social patterns.
    Also important to recognise static / dynamic as two ends of a continuum -
    just a matter of the timescales over which any change is possible /
    noticable. One of the reasons I find so many roads leading back to
    evolutionary psychology or things of that ilk.

    Ian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Jonathan B. Marder
    Sent: 31 August 2003 16:36
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: MD The S/O divide

    Hi Scott, Platt, Sam, Bo, All:

    Scott
    > This is why I say that the S/O divide should be seen as a case of the
    > DQ/SQ divide. It's too ingrained in us to be called a *static* pattern
    > of value.

    Platt
    How "ingrained" something is has no effect on its being a static
    pattern. The laws of physics are pretty well ingrained yet still static
    patterns of the inorganic level. But, the S/O divide, if we agree it is
    a static social pattern, can be said to be seen as "a case of the DQ/sq
    divide, or perhaps less abstractly, a case (pattern) in the MOQ moral
    hierarchy.

    Jonathan says, I dissent on both counts:
    1. "Ingrained" and "static" are synonyms, both meaning resistant to change.
    2. I don't see the S/O divide as a social pattern. It is an (intellectual)
    description of perception AT ALL LEVELS.

    IMHO, what Pirsig has done is to LIBERATE the S/O divide from a metaphysical
    straightjacket. According to my understanding of the quality idea, the S/O
    division is no longer a fixed, absolute dichotomy that defines the bounds of
    reality; it is a dynamically-assigned division that can help describe
    experience.

    Jonathan

    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 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 21:23:54 BST