Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:29:15 +0100
Dear all Lila Squad.
Allow me a sum-up of last week's exchange (at least the threads I
have been involved in) there are so many loose ends and unfinished
things and a nagging feeling that valuable opinions go unnoticed...!
My first concern is that my suggested answer to the no. 15 FAQ: ("If
the world is composed of value, then who is doing the valuing?") did
cause a certain dismay. Maggie wondered who was running the show and
Diana said (in a response to Ravi) that she needed more convincing
before she factored her identity out of existence! Magnus and Mark
stepped in and comforted Maggie, but then if that wasn't enough I
presented the Libet experiments. That upset Ken who interpreted it as
an introduction of an outside agent
Yes, I really managed to create some confusion, but on the other
hand are we now at the core of the MOQ. I'll return to it by way of a
comment to Martin Stritz.
Martin! It was a surprise that you found a pirsigean on your own
campus. Maggie has done a little research on Hofstadter and found
that he isn't the source of Mr Bailey's levels(I have H's "Mind's
Eye", but not the GEB although the title is well known), then you
received his affirmation of Pirsig as the source. Hope he will
turn up at the LS board!
Also thanks for the info on the time span before the "heat
death", I feared that it was just thirty billion years :-).
Some time back I "promised" you my account of your
correspondent Mike's objection to Pirsig calling our present
outlook subject/object metaphysics. I have searched for the letter
where he said this, but no luck so far. Anyway the gist of what Mike
said is that the borderline between the subjective in the sense of
inner, mental as contrasted with outer objective is not drawn at the
same place as immaterial/material (or spiritual/corporeal if this
old- fashioned expression is still used). For instance are numbers,
ghosts, angels.... yes, even God supposed to be objective although
not of this world. I think this is a keen observation from his
side, and a bit funny that it hasn't been brought up in our
discussions. It carries a certain weight at first glance, but if one
asks what the difference between a number and a thought is, there
follows a big silence. Naturally because it soon dawns upon a
consistent thinker that s-he is at the very core of the problem that
Pirsig set out to remedy.
But this overlooking of the most basic notion is abundant. For
instance did I (in my web essay) mention the Danish prophet Martinus
and his Cosmology (do you know him Anders and Hugo?). His vision was
of a spirit world organized in so and such way. He himself did not
care to analyze the "nature" of this realm, but the chief disciple Per
Bruus Jensen tried, and ends up in a "trinity" of
Objectivity/Subjectivity and a Supersubjectivity where the spirits
belong (superobjectivity is just as valid).
This logic quagmire is the fate of all SOM-derived thinking, yes
it is SOM itself! And we see why Pirsig turned against the venerable
notion of noble Socrates and Platon. The latter particularly because
he is the father of a separate idea (soul) realm which later fused
with the Middle East Semitic religion into what we know as Western
subject/object culture.
(Back to the general discussion) If anyone of religious leaning
reads this and thinks that the MOQ puts God into the subjective bag
and thereby scraps religion (as such) wholesale, it doesn't and I
will explain why. I haven't brought it up in the discussion earlier
because I sense - like Platt - that to bring in theology (not to
speak about teleology) is the end of all seriousness. But deep down
it is my conviction that the MOQ is a revival of something
arch-religious: namely that EVERYTHING IS GOD, and that existence -
ourselves included - are expressions of GOD. See how it matches the
everything-is-good-and-existence-is- levels-of good. I think Mark has
nudged towards this understanding in the logic vs truth thread - as
well as in other connections.
Ravi in his post to Diana asked: "When the observer
becomes the observed, isn't there only observation? Isn't that the
goal of Quality at all levels?" In her answer Diana affirmed this,
but made the previously mentioned reservation about "identity". I
agree: the ultimate goal is as Ravi says, but the great achievement of
the MOQ is that it recognizes SOM as a level within itself (namely
Intellect and it's valuing of self as different from environment's
value (matter) and community' value (society)). No,Quality is no
plunge back into oblivious identification with nature, or fanatical
identification with society. Our identity is maintained/secured.
What about the Libet findings? Ken wanted an account of
the ominous-sounding "even more disturbing" part. It will appear, but
I need some time to refresh my knowledge on the issue.
The more tangents I see to the MOQ, the more enormous its scope
becomes, and the more solid its case looks. Martin's correspondent
Mike's objection is no serious challenge, just another demonstration
of the SOM wound that Pirsig set out to heal.
Thanks for reading.
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 - 16:42:15 CEST