Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:15:47 +0100
Diana wrote:
> I have always thought of rational, categorical and subject-object
thinking as all
> being the same thing. But perhaps not. Platt says that subject object
thinking is the
> only kind of thinking there is. I can see that thinking has to be
categorical
> otherwise the mind has nothing to grasp, but it's possible that these
categories may
> be something other than subjects and objects.... can we have some more
words from you
> on this Platt?
What I mean when I say that all thinking is subject-object thinking is
simply that thinking requires a thinker, the subject, and a thought, the
object. This basic dualism is necessary for thinking of any kind--rational,
categorical, structural, quantum or MoQ.
We in the Western World were sitting fat, dumb and happy with this dualism
until Pirsig came along and asked, "How come some thoughts are better than
others?" The rest is history. A is no longer A. A is Value. The dualistic
nature and operative functions of thinking stay the same, but it begins
from a whole new premise that results in a whole new pattern, the
Metaphysics of Quality.
Although the top position in this new structure is no longer subjects and
objects but Static and Dynamic Quality, Pirsig says the basic duality of
thinker and thought remains: "Societies and thoughts and principles are no
more than sets of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves
perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that."
(Lila, Chapter 13.)
Since the term subject-object thinking has stirred up such a storm of
discussion, perhaps it's better to take it out of the FAQ and simply say
"thinking."
Platt
-- 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 - 16:42:14 CEST