Struan, Squonk and Group.
Welcome back Struan. You said to Squonk:
> I think the subject object distinction you have set up here is a
> false dichotomy, Squonk. Quality is not a 'thing', which resides
> outside of me, nor a concept within me. It is a *relationship*.
I jumped when I saw this because it sounds straight from Pirsig's
mouth. In ZAMM (one of the stages in the "Getting Warmer
Game") it says: "Quality is not a thing, it is an event"
and in LILA: "....Quality is between the stove and the oaths,
between the subject and the object lies the value (.....) Quality
couldn't be idependently related with either the subject or the
object, but could be found only in the relationship of the two with
each other. It is the point at which subject and object meet".
No sarcasm, but to me your "Cold Water" example looks like
another version of the "Hot Stove" demonstration.
> Bo tells us that 'it's the leaving the subject/object fixation which
> is the great achievement', and he is right to the extent that unless
> you can stop being fixated by the mythical SOM, you will continue to
> invent fatuous questions and be unduly obsessed by false
> dichotomies.
Thanks for the "..to the extent" allowance. This may not be news to
you Struan, but my position is that only with Pirsig did the
subject/object divide become exposed as a false METAPHYSICS,
but it's not a valueless DICHOTOMY. Remember the "Probing of
Brains" thread when you wanted to demonstrate that the two-
staged mind/matter metaphysics is false (and that introducing a
four-staged MoQ would be nonsense) soon faced the S/O
apparition and got lost? No gloating over that, I saw your point as I
saw it the time you said the bio. and socio. levels (between matter
and mind) was ....an ugly complication) but I also saw that your
criticism was based on wrong premises.
Let me not make this too long, but only add that some debaters
may have understood what it is to "leave the S/O dichotomy", but
not what it is to leave the subject/object METAPHYSICS and
thereby re-introduce SOM by asking if value is objective or
subjective ........or by making the intellectual level a new "mind"
(not for you Squonk;-)
I repeat: No irony intended, but your opening statement struck me
and I won't say more before I have your opinion if you regard the
"Cold Water" example a disproof, or if you have had second
thoughts about Pirsig's idea? Or is it just me who don't understand
a thing?
See you
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:42 BST