As far as I can make out from the text, Pirsig is using the word
'see' not to mean 'light reflected of an object and to your eye
and thence to your brain' but rather to mean 'notice' or 'experience'.
In the sense that something can pass in front of your eyes but
you may not 'see' it.
I would suggest that it isn't cultural filters that prevent the Natchez
from differentiating blue and green - it's our cultural filters that make
us differentiate between them. We see blue/green differences and
they don't because we have cultural filters that they do not posess.
Ta,
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valence [SMTP:valence10@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:02 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Seeing the Light
>
> Erin,
>
> ERIN
> Rick they do see the difference.
>
> RICK
> Erin how do you know?
>
> ERIN
> They don't distinguish the difference.
>
> RICK
> This is a conclusion, not an argument... and it begs the question. We're
> trying to decide whether Pirsig means 'see' or 'distinguish'. The
> question
> is whether the light SHOWS UP in our field of vision and is THEN ignored
> because of cultural definitions of what is real and unreal... or whether
> cultural definitions of what is real and unreal filter out the light
> BEFORE
> it shows up in our field of vision.
>
> ERIN
> Is that peyote affecting your short-term memory-remember all the Whorfian
> talk?
>
> RICK
> What peyote?
> Either way, Whorf was about LANGUAGE, which is but one single kind of
> social
> pattern. We talking here of the effect of an entire mythos.
>
> ERIN
> So then difference between subjective and objective would be majority
> vote.
>
> RICK
> According to Pirsig, what is subject and objective depends on CULTURAL
> definitions of what is real and unreal. This is not say 'majority vote'
> determines what is subjective and objective. Rather, 'majority vote'
> determines what the culture defines as real and unreal.
>
> BO
> Explain the S of SOM in terms of the O! Exactly! (and the O in terms of
> the
> S for the idealist camp I would add) is the self-
> defeating task that the SOMites never seem to tire of, and regrettably a
> trap
> that so many would-be MOQites also fall for. See the "Seeing the Light"
> thread.
>
> ERIN
> Hear, hear!
>
> RICK
> I'd expect this sort of 'SOM v MOQ' nonsense from Bo, but from you
> Erin??? Glenn and I trying to understand WHAT PIRSIG IS SAYING!!!! Not
> crafting any explanation of our own.
> Pirsig's Dharmakaya passage is CLEARLY an attempt to establish that
> the
> light has an objective existence. Does this make Pirsig an 'SOMite'?
> Don't
> be silly. 'SOMite' is what a given 'MOQer' calls anyone who either
> disagrees with Pirsig or has a different interpretation of Pirsig 's work
> (Pirsig provides several 'ready made insults' for this type of person...
> SOMer, philosophologist,etc). It's nonsense and use of these epithets is
> the mark of low-Quality argumentation.
> I'd also be careful before I put my eggs in the Bo Skutvik basket. He
> mourns a '...trap that so many would-be MOQites also fall for...". But
> that's ridiculous, the analysis being discussed in this thread is
> PIRSIG'S!!! And that Bo understands Pirsig's vision of the MOQ is FAR
> from
> established. His SOLAQI idea about the MOQ has been EXPRESSLY rejected by
> Pirsig and many of Bo's thoughts are in direct conflict with the text.
>
> rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
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 - 16:01:56 BST