Re: MD The MOQ: An expansion of rationality

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2004 - 12:08:41 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD: MOQ Where's the matter gone?"

    Hi

    You say:When Pirsig uses subject-object metaphysics he also is referring to
    a
    distinction between subjective experience and objective experience. I don't
    think intellect depends on making such metaphysical assumptions.

    DM: clearly a large aspect of intellectual activity relies
    on the primary/secondary experience distinction that is related to SOM.
    It is also a distinction that the humanities mistakenly follow as Pirsig
    points out RE: anthropology.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:24 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The MOQ: An expansion of rationality

    > Hi DM,
    >
    > >Steve said: During this social era, which I take to mean the era
    > > before intellect
    > > reached a certain degree of freedom from social control, such an
    explanation
    > > of experience was still an example of intellect. Spirits seeking mother
    > > earth has been proven to be a bad intellectual pattern, but it is still
    an
    > > intellectual pattern, a pattern of thought.
    >
    > > DM: I see what you're saying. I think Bo's point is that it is only once
    > > the SO divide is being used by thinking that is has the sort of
    power/use
    > > that we would now call intellectual. Any other suggestions for a sort
    > > of thinking that is intellectual but does not use SO divide?
    >
    > Steve:
    > In the MOQ, intellectual is a type of pattern of value. Such usage must
    be
    > distinguished from that of labeling a person an intellectual. Everyone
    > thinks, by which I mean everyone participates in intellectual patterns,
    but
    > not everyone is considered an intellectual. I think when you say "only
    once
    > the SO divide is being used by thinking that is has the sort of power/use
    > that we would now call intellectual" I take you to be talking about the
    high
    > quality of the intellectual pattern of distinguishing subjective and
    > objective experience. It is a good intellectual pattern, not the only
    one.
    >
    > The question also depends a lot on what you (and Bo) mean by the SO
    divide.
    > When Pirsig uses the term subject-object metaphysics, I don't take him to
    be
    > criticizing the structure of grammar with it's subjects and predicates,
    for
    > example. When one uses the pronoun "I" he has not necessarily committed an
    > SOM sin. I take Pirsig to be talking about a metaphysical assumption that
    > primary reality is composed of mental substances and material substances.
    > Perceived qualities such as color, odor, and temperature are secondary
    > qualities (less than real) since material substance is composed of
    particles
    > that have no such properties, and such qualities as emotions are tertiary
    > qualities even further removed from primary reality.
    >
    > When Pirsig uses subject-object metaphysics he also is referring to a
    > distinction between subjective experience and objective experience. I
    don't
    > think intellect depends on making such metaphysical assumptions.
    >
    > Intellect logically has to be in place before philosophy can evolve, since
    > one must think before he can think about thinking, so SOM philosophical
    > assumptions cannot be the equivalent of intellect.
    >
    > > Also you say: mathematics for example does not require the supposition
    of
    > > material
    > >> substances interacting with mental substances.
    > >
    > > See the possibility of an argument that maths does exactly this via
    > > its use of the concept of space as a form of experience:
    >
    > > http://www.geoffreyread.org/fate.html
    >
    > That's a really long paper. Could you summarize the relevant argument?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Steve
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Sat Jan 10 2004 - 12:16:54 GMT