From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2004 - 19:46:40 GMT
Hi Bo
I have switched to the discuss because we have gone
off subject I feel, unless you describe this discussion as
an example of changing the MOQ. Overall I feel that
your concern really is about the extent of the role of
the SO divide in the world as experienced via an MOQ
approach. I certainly agree that whatever is useful in the SOM
can be retained in the MOQ, but I see no problem with changing
the language of SOM and even dropping subject and object entirely.
As a philosophy student of 20 years this appeals to me because I am
very aware of the SOM limitations, all around the uses of the subjects
and objects language. I started off in the philosophy and history of
science,
spent many many years reading high German idealism, moving on to
phenomenology
and existentialism and getting a grip on post-modernism on the way.
I wish I could use the language of those disciplines to deal with your
questions/
problems but I don't think you have the background. I really recommend you
read
something like theCambridge companion to Heidegger's that may just about be
accessible and really does a good job at explaining Heidegger's overcoming
of the dualist (SOM) tradition. It is a deeper argument than Pirsig's but on
very similar
lines. In the philosophy of science there is now a very strong recognition
of the problematic
nature of the ideas of laws and objects. This is due to the falling away of
determinism,
being simply wrong as Popper says, and the more process based conceptual
approaches
where identifying separate objects rather than systems seems wrong headed.
Popper does seem to point the way forward in his essay on propensities that
Anthony also
refers to. The closeness of this notion to Pirsig's static patterns is quite
clear.
You appeal to reason, but I take science as being exemplary here, and
science is having
less and less use for SOM language and categories. Essentially, I do not see
why reason
would lose anything if we dropped the SOM concepts entirely. Heidegger's
incredibly
illuminating conception of what it is to be human aligns very closely with
Pirsig's hints
about the activities of DQ. In fact it gains significantly by overcoming the
current blindspots
of SOM. For further comments see below IN UPPER CASE:
I think your fears are unfounded, at least in my conception of the MOQ.
kind regards
David M
The SOM isn't mere materialism and the subject hasn't faded the
least. It's the SCHISM itself, between mind and matter, psychic
and physical, mental and corporeal, culture and nature ...etc. ad
infinitum. ------------------------------------------------------------I
KNOW THIS, OF COURSE, SOM IS NOT MATERIALISM BUT IT TENDS TO DETERIORATE
INTO MATERIALSM -HISTORICALLY, AND IN POST-MODERNISM THE SO-CALLED DEATH OF
THE SUBJECT MATCHES THIS, WHILST DERRIDA'S FAMOUS LITERARY FREEDOM IS A SORT
OF DEMONSTRATION OF THE UN-PIN-DOWNABLE NATURE OF DQ
> And it has produced a great deal of valuable knowledge up to the
> point where it now seems to be a metaphysics creating unnecessary
> limits and problems, despite still having some capacity to deliver
> more knowledge.
Total agreement. It's value is enormous.
> Pirsig proposes we adopt a quality matephysics instead with
> a different SQ/DQ divide where we recognise the underlying union of
> the two in Quality.
If "the two" are subject and object ...Yes.-------NO THE TWO I MEAN ARE
DQ/SQ, BUT S/O & EVERYTHING ELSE IS UNDIFFERENTIATED IN QUALITY EXPERIENCE
> This different divide enables us to look at all
> those aspects of SQ that under SOM would fall into the subject and
> be ignored.
Hmmm...let me see how you continue.
> It also enables us to open up a clear site where DQ is active
> in its pretty undefinable way, allowing us to recognise DQ and not
> think we can describe a total world of objects and nothing but
> material objects.
More ..hmmm.
> Now this SQ/DQ devide has no effect on
> science/knowledge as Pirsig says, we just get a different conception
> of what we mean by causality and objects.
OK, the Quality view has no effect on the "readings of
instruments" different from those in the SOM view ... as Pirsig
says. -------------------------------------------------------------OR ON
ANYTHING ELSE EITHER,
CAUSALITY REMAINS BUT WITHOUT EXPECTATIONS OF ALL PATTERNS RESEMBLING THOSE
OF MECHANISMS, PATTERNS REPLACE OBJECTS,
> So Bo where is the value of
> SO divide here, do we need it?
Brace yourself for an explanation.
First my opinion what's wrong in the "orthodox" view where SOM
is regarded a bad (NOT BAD, LIMITED, AS PERHAPS MOQ
WILL BE SOME TIME, IT LEADS TO TECHNOLOGICAL
DISASTER AS HEIDEGGER WARNED) intellectual pattern
to be replaced by the MOQ.
In this view the S/O can't be retained, it's dead and gone,
------------------------------------(IT WILL ALWAYS BE PART OF OUR HISTORY
AND
------------------------------------ITS FRUITS WILL REMAIN WITH US,
-----------------------------------LIKE GREAT TECHNOLGICAL POWER &
PRODUCTIVITY)
and it's here my "holy wrath" has its origin ;-) We can't allow REASON to
perish ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-------(WHY WOULD IT?),
and don't give me that it can live down below somewhere!
As SOM it is thrown out in the metaphysical trash can.
Thus everything depends on seeing the intellectual level as the
S/O schism - all of it, every last bit. In its context intellect
becomes the VALUE of the S/O while the metaphysical 'M' is ----------THERE
IS NO REASON TO STOP USING
taken over by MOQ which has moved beyond intellect. Do you ---------S/O
DIVIDE WHERE IT IS USEFUL
see the idea of this shuffle? Before, as SOM, the schism was - ----------DO
YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES
well - metaphysical: As the world had been assembled "from the
factory". As a static level we can use all the S/O dichotomies with
great ease (BTW can we avoid it?).
The physical sciences need not create any new cumbersome "B ----POPPER
EXPLAINS IN HIS ESSAY ON
values A" causation (are there anyone who thinks this
ossible?) -----PROPENSITIES WHY THE PUSH NOTION
the metaphysical riddle is solved at the plane it belongs and not -----OF
CAUSALITY IS WRONG
in laboratories or auditoriums. I could go on about how - in the
said orthodox view - it is impossible to rid the MOQ of the
Rortyan "intersubjetivity" accusation, while the SOL frees it of
it ----------DON'T SEE WHY, THE MOQ HAS
...but this is
h ----------------------------------------------POTENTIALLY THE SAME
STATUS
---------------------------------------------SOM ONCE HAD, STILL HAS EVEN,
AS METAPHYSICAL BASIS
----------------------------------------------------FOR ALL OUR HUMAN
CONCEPTIONS AND ACTIVITIES
> I think it has had a great historic
> value and influence (up to here I think I agree with you) but is now
> superseded by MOQ.
Yes, it is superseded, but everything is about HOW it is
superseded and I believe the above answers it.-----------------I DO NOT
SHARE YOUR FEARS, I CANNOT SEE
-----------------------------------------------------------------THAT WE
LOSE ANYTHING, WE ONLY SHAKE
--------------------------------------------------------------OFF SOM
LIMITATIONS
> In the MOQ the subject-object distinction melts
> away, everything falls into our different level patterns inorganic,
> organic, social structures, structures within the individual,
> cultural structures, etc.
The subject/object distinction must not be allowed to "melt away",
merely to lose its metaphysical quality (YES/NO THE BIG THING IS TO LOSE THE
'M'
AND THIS WILL CAUSE MANY ASPECTS OF OUR CURRENT SOM THINKING TO MELT AWAY,
PERHAPS YOU UNDER-ESTIMATE THE IMPLICATIONS -READ HEIDEGGER!). Pirsig says
so too, but his
way of retaining it (inorg.+bio.=objects/socio.+intell.=subjects) -----THIS
IS ONLY SAYING HOW HIS LEVELS
LOOK COMPARED TO SOM, HE IS NOT ADVOCATING USING SOM THIS WAY, AS THESE ARE
ALL STATIC LEVELS THIS POINTS OUT HOW THE LAST TWO LEVELS ARE STATIC AS WELL
EVEN
THOUGH THE SOM USES THE PROBLEMATIC 'SUBJECT' CONCEPTION WITH RESPECT TO
THEM
SEE THIS ESSAY TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM IN SOCIOLOGY:
http://assets.cambridge.org/0521791758/sample/0521791758WS.pdf
does not - as said - save REASON as a static value, nor does it
cover all aspects of the SOM. ------WHAT ASPECTS DOES IT NOT
COVER!!!!!??? -THIS SEEMS ODD COMMENT.
> As you can see I think we need more level complexity
> than Pirsig suggests but I do not think that is a big deal, just
> getting ontological levels going is the really important thing.
The accusation against me is this Q-level I postulate, but I see
the present static structure as perfect. What you mean by
"ontological levels" isn't clear to me. ----------------------------THIS
IS SO KEY TO PIRSIG,
UNDER SOM WE GET DUALISM OR MATERIALISM OR IDEALISM (SUBJECTIVISM),
PIRSIG SAYS NO, THERE IS DQ POURING OUT STATIC PATTERNS, THESE FORM
INTO LEVELS, THESE LEVELS ARE ALSO QUALITY THEREFORE BASIC THEREFORE
THEIR OWN ONTOLOGICAL LEVELS. I.E. NEW BEING OCCURS, THERE IS EMERGENCE
IN THE COSMOS. DQ IS LIKE THE FLUX TO THE GREEKS, BUT PIRSIG SAYS NOT FLUX
BUT A CREATIVE POURING FORTH OF STATIC PATTERNS TOO, AND THESE HAVE FULL
ONTOLIGICAL STATUS, THE GREEKS TRIED TO SOLVE THE PATTERN PROBLEM WITH
ANOTHER
MORE REAL WORLD OF ARCHETYPES WHICH LATER WERE REPLACED IN OUR CULTURE
BY LAWS AND SUBSTANCE, BUT WE CAN NO LONGER POINT TO ANYTHING THAT IS A
SUBSTANCE NOW THAT MATERIALISM IS DEAD IN THE WATER
Over
> to you Bo.....If you are going to tell me that I am washing away
> some great value in the SI (MISTYPE OF SO HERE) divide, I don't see it.
Tell me what I
> am losing, why I should be concerned.
It's the S/O ...no? I believe I have harped enough on its value.
To see it as some lesser intellectual "idea" ... in an idea-intellect..
is my nightmare.
INSTINCTS ARE OF GREAT USE BUT LIKE THEM SOM WILL
BE SUPERSEDED BUT WILL EQUALLY NOT ENTIRELY DISAPPEAR
Truly and sincerely
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/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 : Thu Feb 12 2004 - 20:02:39 GMT