Moqofs,
David B, or rather Ken Wilber has given us the best definition so far:
>Ken Wilber, puts it this way on pages 58
> and 59 of "A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYTHING"....
>
> "...the old paradigm that everybody doesn't want is the enlightenment
> paradigm, which is also called the modern paradigm. It has dozens of
> names, ... the Newtonian, the Cartesian, the mechanistic, the mirror of
> nature, the reflection paradigm. ... And the fundamental Elightenment
> paradigm is known as the representational paradigm. This is the idea that
> you have the self or the subject on the one hand, and the empirical or
> sensory world, on the other, and all valid knowledge consists in making
> maps of this empirical world, the single and simple "pregiven" world. And
> if the map is accurate, if it correctly represents, or corresponds with,
> the empirical world, then that is truth."
(I'll try and get hold of Wilber's book but it isn't so easy when you don't
live in an English speaking country, which is why I need people to
recommend me stuff so that I can order it)
And because you can't talk about the SOM without Descartes I think
we need to preserve Matthew Ketchum's description.
>There is no such thing as a "subject-object metaphysics" per se. What
>Pirsig is referring to, of course, is the traditional division between mind
>and matter that has dominated philosophy since the time of Descartes. The
>underlying questions of all metaphysics are "what things exist?" and "what
>is the nature of those things that exist?" Descartes held that both mind
>and matter exist and that the existence of each is independent of the other.
>There are, therefore, two things that exist. I suppose that this would be a
>"purely SOM position."
I also think Matthew's right that Pirsig doesn't define the SOM well. I
think it's better explained in ZMM, but that's not really an excuse, LILA
should stand alone. He just seems to assume that you know what he means.
Well that's a weakness, but it doesn't make him wrong.
Glenn wrote
>but it's not at all clear to me that SOM is responsible for the
>alienation outside a very small percentage of educated people (see my first
>post). The average guy doesn't make these distinctions, and if you point them
>out to him, he says "OK, so what?" You see, the mind/matter split is a problem
>at academic institutions, but not around the water cooler or dinner table. The
>argument that SOM is deep and broad and affects us all subliminally is a great
>big "maybe" in my book.
The SOM view is basically the dualism between "I" and the rest of the world.
it's not that things like value, morality and so on don't exist at all in the SOM,
the problem is that they are regarded as subjective, in other words they are
just a matter of opinion. Because of that subjective things are not true or untrue
but only good or not good. Objective things are the only things that can be true
and so they seem more important than subjective things.
Actually you already gave a good
example of how objectivity caused problems in social science.
Objectivity is also the principle behind our money culture - it's easier to measure
the monetary value of something than calculate its beauty or even its usefulness,
because only the monetary value is objective. The amount you paid for something
is a written down verifiable amount. By contrast things that we can't put an objective
value to, like fresh air and clean water, seem not to be worth anything. That's what
makes it so easy for corporations to steal them from us. The hypermasculinisation
of society is a subject-object problem. The male role is visible and objectively verifiable,
the female role is hidden, known only to family. Actually it's just as valuable but
basically it's impossible to measure so it's been disregarded so much so that now
the successful highly regarded female is one who behaves like a male. Our
exam-based education system, is another example. The ability to regurgiate
Notes on Shakespeare can be objectively measured so that's what we've come
to value. As for actually learning something of value from a great writer? Forget
it, how could we ever measure that?
And when an individual isn't happy with these objective values the SOM then turns
around and blames it on the subject. If you're not happy with your objectively
measurable success then you must have a subjective problem, in which case you'll
need a shrink. As Matthew put it so well, metaphysics is about what exists. By
only acknowledging the two realms of subject and object the SOM only gives us
two possible places to look for any solution.
A person doesn't have to know anything about the SOM to be affected by these
problems. Even well-meaning and moral people get influenced without realising it.
And, as I was trying to get at in my first post even academics who do
understand it intellectually may not apply that to social problems.
I don't know if it's possible to understand that the SOM exists unless you can also
see the alternative. Basically the mystic view does not accept a separation between
"I" and anything else. It sees everything as one. The stuff of the world and the stuff
of the mind are the same. I am noone in particular, nor are you nor is anyone. If we
all saw everything with this awareness then nobody would a poison a river any more
than they'd poison their own food.
Diana
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST