Date: Wed Feb 11 2004 - 21:20:33 GMT
David M. and Focussers.
On 9 Feb. you wrote:
> Bo said:
> > I just wonder what people see as its central "value" if
> > taking
> > intellect down a peg means "smashing" the MOQ. I fear that the >
> > answer is that intellect is their holy grail ...consciousness, MIND,
> > where everything resides, and DYNAMIC most of all. This is >
> > somish to the core and what I have protested always. Intellect is > the
> > highest static value, yet static with a limited capacity and as
> > blind to any movement above itself as the rest of the levels.
> DM: Hi Bo, still trying to grasp what your position is....
> Please tell me what you agree/disagree with below:
If it isn't too off-topic I'll try.
> Now SOM has a long and evolving history from Greeks via Descartes to
> modern materialism (i.e. SOM with a less and less visible subject).
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
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
> 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 intellectual pattern to be replaced by the MOQ.
In this view the S/O can't be retained, it's dead and gone, and it's
here my "holy wrath" has its origin ;-) We can't allow REASON to
perish, 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
taken over by MOQ which has moved beyond intellect. Do you
see the idea of this shuffle? Before, as SOM, the schism was -
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
values A" causation (are there anyone who thinks this possible?)
the metaphysical riddle is solved at the plane it belongs and not
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
...but this is enough
> 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.
> 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. Pirsig says so too, but his
way of retaining it (inorg.+bio.=objects/socio.+intell.=subjects)
does not - as said - save REASON as a static value, nor does it
cover all aspects of the SOM.
> 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.
> to you Bo.....If you are going to tell me that I am washing away
> some great value in the SI 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.
Truly and sincerely
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 12 2004 - 16:04:59 GMT