Jonathan, Phil and Tor and group.
For JONATHAN who wrote:
> In my example, the events perceived change, and the way they are
> valued changes. The same "facts" take on a completely new meaning.
Exactly
> Bodvar (5 Nov 1999)
> >As everyone (of the MF) know, the MOQ rejects the subject/object
> >division in favour of a Dynamic quality/Static quality one.
> I don't know this, and keep pulling Bo up on the same point. Please
> show me where the MoQ REJECTS the subject/object division. As I see
> it, the MoQ subsumes the SO division. It is a step backwards so that
> one no longer assumes the division as some absolute "given", but
> instead asks "on what basis am I making this SO division?"
> Interestingly, this is a major element of modern physics - the idea
> that the measurer (subject) is actually part of the same system as the
> observed "object".
Okay, Jonathan, I accept this adjustment, but operating on the
metaphysical level as we do, a division, dualism, dichotomy which
isn't absolute is sort of "rejected" - even if go on living at a more
mundane level. Don't you agree? For example the famous up/down
division that was an absolute in Ptolemaic cosmology, but
degraded to local status in the new cosmic paradigm. It is still
useful, valid - in avoidable even - but not fundamental.
> where the MoQ REJECTS the subject/object division.
I should have read LILA again. On the flyleaf I have made a private
reference table, but however long it grows it never contains the
information needed. But if not that book is a rejection of SOM in
the above sense I am pretty far off the mark.
Subsumed, yes definitely. There is one passage I remember: "The
purpose of the MOQ is not to trash all subject/object
thought.....etc" But really Jonathan, don't we know all this by now?
The problem is HOW the subsumation (?) is done. We know
Pirsig's original containment idea, i.e. that the two lower levels are
"objects/objective", while the two upper are "subjects/subjective". A
few people know (and like) my SOLAQI i.e. the Intellectual level as
(the value of) subject/object division itself.
> On a minor sideline, several people have recently brought up (again)
> the causation paradox. Let me again draw attention to my "The End of
> Causality" essay, now in the forum. The main point of the essay is
> that this paradox is apparent in science way before the advent of
> quantum theory.
Thanks for reminding us. I will have a look into it, but I am already
convinced that the causation (and thereby the free will/determinism
paradox) platypus is made invalid in the same way as the SOM is,
but don't you think that it too is "subsumed" in some way? That the
nature-nurture question also can be used in a "local" context?
******************************'
For PHIL who wrote:
> The reason why I find these quesrions so interesting is that they seem
> to me to be so deeply enmeshed with SOM itself. If I think about N/N
> then the question basically is, 'Was I born and am I presdestined to
> be a certain way (subjective) or am I a result of external influences
> (objective) and the same with FW/D. I'm trying to think of a good
> analogy....
I agree 100%. The SOM-derived nurture/nature dichotomy is not a
question of freedom but by what side we are chained. Freedom is
sort of ruled out in beforehand.
> If we took an apple out of a beautiful orchard and asked ourselves,
> 'Why does this apple have quality? Was it predestined to be this way,
> or it a result of the beautiful orchard it grew in?' The question
> becomes a little more transparent - it's neither really, but because
> fail to see that the apple and it's orchard (and ourselves and our
> environment) aren't separate really, they're the same thing!'. What
> I'm trying to say is that a person and his environment grow towards
> quality or fall away from quality together. We are not separate from
> our environment so the two debates are esssentially meaningless!
I like this too. The static value levels are really one (compared with
the dynamic part of the equation) they are facets of the same
diamond, yet cannot be seen as a unit - usually. Focus is at one
level at a time. However short the time it dwells
> Our own behavior (which is pure quality) is presumed to be caused from
> either ourselves or our environment but it's not so. What's happening
> is that the quality event (our own bahavior) causes awareness of
> subject and object which is then mistakenly thought to be the cause of
> quality itself.
It's not right of me to question this solid assertion, but I (for one)
am not happy with this "causing awareness of subjects and
objects which is then...etc" formulation because it may mislead
someone (uninitiated) into believing it to a SOM-like "idealism"....:
...the world a creation of mind!. It is from before P. had worked out
the MOQ proper. Try to shape a MOQ formulation of this "quality
event".
> MOQ gives a 'Mu' answer to these two debates because MOQ is
> non-dualist and the concept of N/N and FW/D is firmly in the arena of
> static intellectual quality, specifically good old dualistic SOM. It's
> not right or wrong to debate these things as long as you know that
> that's the arena you're fighting inside. It is however wrong to debate
> these things using Pirsig's levels because then you're just turning
> MOQ into SOM by thinking that the levels are actually 'real' entities
> in themselves, the same way SOM presumes that the separation between
> subject and object is 'real'.
Here you are on to something important, and uncle Bo will now try
to sell you his SOLAQI (subject-object logic as Q intellect) idea.
> ...... N/N and FW/D is firmly in the arena of
> static intellectual quality, specifically good old dualistic SOM.
..you say. Yes, but why not simply regard the whole intellectual
level as the value of subject-objectivisation? "Dualistic SOM" then
becomes the fallacy of regarding intellect as "the way the world
was created" (the situation before the MOQ when everybody
regarded the subject/object split to be reality itself - "as it is".
After year 0 (of the new MOQ era :-) ...and after the SOLAQI...??
the metaphysical M of SOM is removed. SO-intellect is the highest
value level, but still subordinate to Dynamic Quality.
Where you around when we discussed a fifth level? I believe that
we reached some sort of agreement that the quality idea itself may
be regarded as a movement beyond intellect. In such a view the Q-
intellect (as it is sometimes called to distance it from SOM's
"mind") is the arena where subjective-objective descriptions of
reality are formulated. And as all levels builds on its parent level the
L5 will necessarily be an arena where NON-SOM descriptions are
formulated.
Ok Phil we have been on this uncharted Quality "waterway" for
years now and have gone into many tributaries in our seach for its
source. I have a strong sense of this being the main channel....but
can be wrong.
*********************
For TOR.
Even if your post of 7 Nov. was directed to Jaap it was so
interesting that I simply can't but comment it. Coming soon :-)
Thanks for reading this.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST