Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:20:20 +0100
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:14:47 -0500 (EST)
Donald T Palmgren (>) wrote to Anthony McWatt (>>):
> > Two points here, "space" is an SOM construct;
> I'm amazied no one picked that up. If space is not real then
> consequently neither is time. The universe is a (shal I say "mere")
> illusion and what really exists is a trancendent unity which is (by
> definition) non-spacial and atemporal. That's called trancendent
> mysticism. Easter "philosophy" is saturated w/ it (I'm not saying that's
> bad) and German Idealism plays seriously close to it.
> Now is that P's position? And if so, why waste all that paper on
> LILA -- what's the point of talking about evolutionary levels if space and
> time don't really exist anyway?
> I read it this way: There is first a unity. You could call it Q if
> you want but (as the Tao te Jing points out) the point of a name is to
> identify the X against all the not-X, and if there is no not-X then it
> dosn't need any name. Names (along w/ time-space, knowers and known, the
> manifoldness of experience, DQ and SQ...) come in *after* the "knife"
> makes the first cut and the unity divides itself. Time and space come out
> of the unity (Q) not SOM. (If time and space were created by a
> metaphysical *THEORY*... [Well, take your own advice, Anthony])
Donny.
No doubt Anthony will reply, but I just can't resist jumping
in at this point. I think you put the finger at a sensitive spot
here, something that perhaps will make Anthony see the significance
of the "SOM/Intellect of MOQ" fusion. Anthony asserts that space and
time are subject/object metaphysical constructs which is correct
enough; each and every concept is knower/known-ish, but if one then
kicks the said SOM out of the MOQ reality --- well, Huston we have a
problem! Enter the SAIOM idea (after this the two are
interchangeable). The knower and the known is what Intellect
is ALL about - every last bit. From a Subject/Object AS
METAPHYSICS p.o.v. this is madness and what broke Phaedrus of ZMM
and made him find the Quality idea as a way out of the blind
alley. IMHO the SAIOM notion is implicated in his work, but he
probably regarded it as too much for one helping so he left it
dangling. The "mind" is left as the opposite to "matter" and this has
kept messing up the issue. Anthony has a Eastern slant to his
thinking - ;-) - which is valid enough, but a bit
frustrating to you Donny.
If for no other reason the SAIOM idea accentuates the point where the
Quality idea takes leave of every hitherto known philosophical
system: If Intellect is seen as a "mere" value level and the
mind/matter division=Intellect, then - and only then - is SOM
"conquered" and we are forced to see that that dizzying chasm is -
well - an evolutionary level, but not REALITY!
So now if you retort: Hmmmm Every concept, theory, idea.. etc. an
Intellectual construct, doesn't that make the MOQ - and SAIOM -
intellectual constructs too?? It does, but now intellect isn't
mind of SOM (as metaphysics) but as a static level of MOQ and the
chief tenet of Quality Metaphysics is that all static levels
in its time spawned the next. The dynamism uses the last static
latch as a springboard and necessarily its "values" as means for its
development, so we will of necessity know/known-conceptualize
our way to a greater view. This is the mind-blowing force of Pirsig's
thinking. Perhaps Nietzsche was on to something similar but he did
not recover from the first stage.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:42:56 CEST