Wim, Magnus and Jonathan (Greetings to Marco and Dave and
Foci. I am still acting the Flying Dutchman only docking every so
often to deliver a mail, will be returning in earnest soon)
WIM said:
> As I understood Pirsig's MoQ Dynamic Quality creates both subjects &
> objects AND static patterns of value (static quality).
The "creation" of subjects and objects is in my opinion connected
with the first Quality insight of ZAMM. Nothing wrong with that, but
in the MoQ proper the static sequence covers it all. So both
subjectivity and objectivity is hidden somewhere in the level
composition.
> Subject/object
> therefore splits only the "group of phenomena" that consists of static
> patterns of value and neither subjects nor objects have a "Dynamic
> part".
I agree with this, at least it is the statics that counts.
The dividing line between subjects and objects is the same as
> the dividing line between inorganic and biological patterns of value
> on the one hand and social and intellectual patterns of value on the
> other hand. See figure 4 on page 13 of Pirsig's "Subjects, Objects,
> Data and Values" (www.moq.org/forum/emmpaper.html).
Yes, the above is Pirsig's way of describing how the MoQ tucks
the SOM under itself, but like Magnus I am not all happy with it,
and also believe that Pirsig was forced to make this "equation" to
reach the audience at the conference in Bruxelles.
> The subject/object-split is not denied per se by Pirsig's MoQ, but it
> is denied as a first split of experiential reality.
You are right and as said in the SODAV paper (and in LILA too?)
he makes the two lower comform to matter and the two upper to
mind.
> I would want to add to Pirsig's MoQ that the dividing line between
> subject (me) and objects depends on which static patterns of value I
> identify with. Other subjects than I are really objects to me. I can
> objectify myself, split myself in an object and a subject and
> recognise the object as comparable to other objects that I therefore
> also call "subjects".
IMO all this is Intellect turning its S/O wheels. It does nothing but
split and is the Subject/Object Metaphysics itself.
MAGNUS said:
> I have always felt that Pirsig in his SODV paper was forced to
> come up with an easy way of representing subjects and objects using
> the MoQ. It's as if his paper was to be denied publication at the
> conference without it. So, he put in in there, but he used the terms
> subjective and objective as in subject-ish and object-ish.
I agree with this and the following ....down to this paragraph
> What the MoQ says here is that subjects and objects are created
> at each quality event at every level but we usually concentrate
> on either the subject or the object depending on the level
> involved. It's us that focus on the subject at quality events
> of the top two levels and on the object at quality events of
> the bottom two levels, hence subject-ish and object-ish. This
> division doesn't come from the MoQ,
which I'm not sure if I understand. However, if you by "we" and "us"
mean the intellectual level that superimposes its S/O value over all
existence I agree unto hysterics.
That goes for JONATHAN too who says:
> Pirsig hasn't really done away with the SO at all, but has
> incorporated it into his MOQ. If we consider subject as the observer
> and object as the observed (things that happen), Pirsig has created
> multiple non-exclusive subjects. The observer observes at the
> molecular level, or is an organism observing at the biological level,
> or a society observing at the social level etc. Thus subject and
> object become relative terms. Objectivity thus also becomes relative -
> (-: depending, of course, on how you look at it :-). >>>
yet ....observer at the molecular level ...or ..observing at the
biological level ... sounds newageish to me. Wonder if Magnus
accepts this?
But thanks everybody, we are here to discuss.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST