Re: MD The S/O Divide

From: Scott R (
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 03:57:08 BST

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD The S/O divide"


    (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 -
    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 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 03:59:31 BST