From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 03:57:08 BST
Bo,
(I've changed the subject line to merge with the related discussion)
----- Original Message -----
> ...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
I disagree. I assume the amoeba is not self-conscious. It doesn't know that
its food is not itself. It is our intellect that observes the distinction
between the amoeba and its food.
, 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?
Yes. And it (the S/O/divide) marks the intellectual level, in that it is
only when people started thinking of themselves as the thinkers that we have
intellect separated from the social.
>
> > 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.
I don't get this. Who is claiming that "the subjective part of the SOM =
DQ", etc.?
>
> > 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.
See above why they are not mixed.
>
> > 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 :-)
We are self-conscious. Because of that, the way we perceive by senses is not
the way animals or plants perceive by senses. Not that I know how they do,
but I think being self-conscious is going to change everything all the way
down. But I think that is a different topic.
- Scott
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 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 03:59:31 BST