Bo
Oops...after sending my last message I reread your post and understand
better, I think, that you were not saying that I proposed this, but that
you are:
> I suggested the S/O divide for q-intellect... A "better than" version of this will
> naturally be: OBJECTIVITY IS BETTER THAN SUBJECTIVITY. And really, > can this enormous value increment be ignored?
Or that Bo's MoQ principles would read:
> > Basic principle: Better is Better.
> > 1st Principle: Something is better than Nothing
> > 2nd Principle: Alive is better than Dead
> > 3rd Principle: Together is better than Alone
4th Principle: Objectivity is better than Subjectivity
Right?
Let me try to interpret this. In leap from the social to the
intellectual level the MoQ proposes that subject object logic is not
only the method by which the leap was accomplished; but that the
principle that "Objectivity is better than Subjectivity" is the only
possible way and absolutely the "best" way the intellect has to
interpret reality. That is until the MoQ came along. And the MoQ is
"better" but it is not a pattern of intellectual values, but something
else, we know not what. It is outside any static pattern we can glean
from experience.
Never mind that Pirsig, in the SODV paper, suggested that the whole
intellectual and social levels are subjective and that the inorganic and
biological are objective.
According to this principle of MoQ's intellect you propose that
objective patterns of value, the fact, that (1+1=2 which is objective,
but neither inorganic nor biological) is of enormously greater value, is
better than, is closer to dynamic quality, than any the subjective
pattern of values. Is better, than say the one we call human
"consciousness". And further according to the MoQ, these intellectual
values, (1+1=2) are the greatest, the best, the closest to dynamic
quality, of any stable patterns that we can experience. Now where this
leads is right back to a quote from William Barrettt that I posted in my
initial essay to the MoQ forum over five years ago.
"Why this strange fear of human consciousness? Why this uneasiness at
admitting it as a clear and evident fact within our human world?.... Is
the consciousness of another person something that we should reasonably
expect to SEE?.......We are plentifully aware of the minds of other
people, but in another and more engulfing way: We share them. They are a
part of the vital flow of life that surrounds and sustains us in the
coming and going of family, friends, and those close to us.... Suppose,
out of a moment of theoretical austerity, seeking to commit ourselves
only to a minimal theory, we strive to consider those close to us "as
if" they had not minds and were not conscious, but were only behaving
bodies. ...to make the illustration as plain and grotesque as possible,
you are approaching a moment of tenderness and passion with the woman
you love, but for a moment you stop to reflect that theoretically you
can treat her words and caresses as if there were no consciousness or
mind behind them. That way madness lies!" (Death of the Soul From
Descartes to the Computer, William Barrett 1913-,Anchor Press/DoubleDay 1986)
In this "minimal theory", I echo Mr Barrett, "That way madness lies!"
3WD
PS: I still think we might all just be on a "solipsist journey" not in
the sense that "nothing is real but the self" but that each individual
"self" makes up so much of what it calls "reality" along the way that it
might as well be.
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 - 16:01:52 BST