Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:12:38 +0100
Dear LS.
My entries take on this summary character, but replying to each will soon
fill every nook of my mind - not to mention my harddisk. I wonder how you
administer the mail flow? Good advice is welcome.
---------------------------------------
For Diana:
Good that you found my last Throne&Chair entry OK. Then you point out that
Pirsig himself does much value definitioning in both LILA and the SODV
paper. Sure, but that is Intellect, when I said 'from within' it means from
levels below Intellect. Remember my proverbial cow from the Tether insight
(in my essay). I said that death had no reality on its biological plane. In
the SOM this sounds silly, the cows merely don't know its fate; We human
beings sit here and have got true objective knowledge from God or Science.
This is silliness from a MOQ point of view. Intellect is the highest
morality all right, but the objectivity is gone. New realities may be
waiting in the wings. (now I probably answered something you did not ask
about!)
-------------------------------------
For Jason:
Thanks for recognizing my humble role as "keeper of the scrolls"; someone
has to shoulder that burden :-).
---------------------------------------
For Maggie Hettinger:
1. Your mediation entry was a fine piece once I got out of my 'meditation'
squint. The parallel to Vygotsky may prove valuable, particularly as the
"sign" term struck a note in the Peirce/Pirsig comparison. I trust Hugo
will follow up on that.
2. The tool example (of how value from one level influences the above) is
valid, but I must draw a fine line here (perhaps it is unnecessary). I
don't think one MORALITY can make much impact on the next higher MORALITY
(I stress this term, because there is no 'objective' level having values
pasted on; the level IS the morality). Surely, food resources have a great
impact on life feeding on a particular staple, but the biologic Morality
isn't dented one bit. Similarly, a tool or a procedure can transform a
particular society, a culture even the whole earth, but the Social Morality
remains the same at its core.
3. The terms "psychological tools", and "human consciousness" may be valid
as you see it, but they sounded very subjective/objective in my ears.
Strictly seen (trust old Bo to be strict!) the Metaphysics of Quality does
not recognize the (absoluteness of) the Subject/Object division (and its
countless offshoots, among them psychic/physic, conscious/nonconscious).
Still, I will not split hairs, particularly as the things you go on to say
about the interaction between Society and Intellect was so splendid.
4. About how you think mediation is useful in the MOQ: Yes and a
conditioned No. I agree that a higher level's sway goes down to the next
lower's territory; life has altered Inorganic earth and Society has altered
(human) Life's condition. And also that Intellectual patterns have altered
Societies profoundly (particularly the Western influenced ones), but I have
this little feeling of you really saying: "The human psyche influences the
physical society" and that is Subject/Object Metaphysics, and if
introduced in the MOQ it makes it little more than another fancy theory.
Please don't let my inquisitorial tone daunt you. I may be wrong.
5. The last paragraphs about balance and overreaching I vouch for. As you
know does Pirsig make a point in LILA about Intellect extending its sway a
little too far into the internal affairs of Society - seemingly joining
strength with Biology (a very sensitive issue). Perhaps we may return to
that later.
--------------------------------------------
For Gene:
You don't think there is any distinction between the MOQ Intellect and the
SOM Mind?!
Well, the Quality idea is a complete farewell to the Subject/Object world.
The latter puts everything inside the two categories, but this produces
hosts of paradoxes because billions of phenomenons don't fit this dichotomy
(none does!). So, if the MOQ that propounds to solve these ills has no
different content of its Intellect term than the SOM. Mind, then I am at a
loss to understand what makes it different from any other New Ageist theory
of levels beyond, on high or below. Sorry for sounding so prophetical, but
constantly I have to return to the basics to get my bearings set.
------------------------------------
For Hugo:
I think you are on to something very quality-like in your struggle to
define Intellect as something differently from the SOM categories you
mention. I once said that all creatures sleep, consequently even a fish has
to 'wake up' to a reality different from unconsciousness, but this is
impossible in a SOM context where the aware-of-objective-reality
implication fills the consciousness concept. My own "tether" insight was
the realization of this fact, in its time it was sheer madness, that's why
the meeting with Pirsig was such a great event to me. Could you perhaps
start with the "umwelt" idea to get the basics clear?
Bo
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST