Hi Dave
you wrote:
> These questions were my point exactly when you were proposing a
> separate higher MoQ level. But since you've backed off that, they are
> mute. (Or are you just conceding the point to shut me up? Sometimes,
> in arguments with myself, I do this too. ;-)
The "rebel" position is fine with me.
(me from before):
> > Likewise, Intellect will never recognize any movement out of
> > intellect. This is an important tenet of the MoQ.
> I again agree.
My point was that with Intellect a static latch it will look upon a movement beyond as
"bad" intellectualwise. If you agree - fine, hope you see the implications?
> Next step. Wim posted this in the MD Oldest idea thread:
> > 'In cultures without books ritual seems to be a public library for
> > teaching the young and preserving common values and information.
> > These rituals may be the connecting link between the social and
> > intellectual levels of evolution. One can imagine primitive
> > song-rituals and dance-rituals associated with certain cosmology
> > stories, myths, which generated the first primitive religions. From
> > these the first intellectual truths could have been derived. If
> > ritual always comes first and intellectual principles always come
> > later, then ritual cannot always be a decadent corruption of
> > intellect. Their sequence in history suggests that principles emerge
> > from ritual, not the other way around.' ('Lila' ch.30, in your copy
> > p. 387)
(I will answer Wim properly soon)
> Why is it that Pirsig provides all the clues, like this one, but we
> all seem to be able to overlook them until they are pointed out?
What is so (particularly) important here? The RT part of LILA demonstrates that the
Quality Idea (Quality=Reality) is "the oldest idea there is" and that the dynamic/static
conflict is reconciled through the ancient (Hindi) rituals.
> OK we
> both agree that the MoQ and SOM are intellectural patterns.(with MoQ
> noted as "rebel") This quote suggests that SOM was not necessarily the
> only pattern of values, or dominant, or even present at the transition
> from social to intellectural.
The S/O divide (or as some like better ...the ability to divide what is objective from what
is subjective) could not be present at its own conception, and it took on many cruder
forms at first (see DMB about the early faces of SOM).
> So SOM was not the midwife at the birth
> of the intellectual level. If it is not responsible for the birth and
> not the entire level, it must be just a pattern of intellectual
> values, a part of the greater sphere of the intellect.
Above Pirsig says:
"One can imagine primitive song-rituals and dance-rituals associated with
certain cosmology stories, myths, which generated the first primitive religions.
From these the first intellectual truths could have been derived".
What is "intellectual truth" other than what is OBJECTIVE in contrast to what people
subjectively think? Thus the "first intellectual truth" is EVERY intellectual truth.
> That does not
> weaken the case that S/O is the current ersatz M of Western though.
> Sorry, but I'm afraid this is another nail in the coffin of SOLAQI.
It seems like other now see its virtue. Rob from before, Wim and Scott and John B.
..tentatively.
> We agree that in his SODV paper he clearly related that SOM
> catagorizes the top two levels of the MoQ as "subjective" and the
> bottom two as "objective". But of course he would like to abandon the
> terms all together.
Agree!
> Pirsig -SODV Page 15
> "I can find no place where the words subjective and objective are used
> where they cannot be replaced by one of these four categories. When we
> get rid of the words "subjective" and "objective" completely often
> there is a great increase in the clarity of what is said. One person
> who I'm sure would agree with me on this would be Niels Bohr."
> NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET REALLY RADICAL SO THAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
> TO CHEW ME UP RATHER THAN THE REVERSE. READ THESE THREE SODV QUOTES
> THOUGHLY. (and if necessary go reread the whole piece on the website.)
> Pirsig-SODV page 12
> "In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three things:
> mind, matter and Quality. Because something is not located in the
> object does not mean that it has to be located in your mind. Quality
> cannot be independently derived from either mind or matter. But it can
> be derived from the relationship of mind and matter with each
> other.Quality occurs at the point at which subject and object meet.
> Quality is not a thing. It is an event. It is the event at which the
> subject becomes aware of the object. And because without objects there
> can be no subject, quality is the event at which awareness of both
> subjects and objects is made possible. Quality is not just the result
> of a collision between subject and object. The very existence of
> subject and object themselves is deduced from the Quality event. The
> Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which are then
> mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!"
> SODV page 16
> "So Bohr never mentions the unmeasured phenomenal object shown as the
> larger dashed oval in the diagram of Complementarity. But as was said
> before, something has to be there. If it were not there the measuring
> instruments would just be measuring their own internal
> characteristics. It is clear from what Bohr does say that the
> unmeasured phenomenal object is unpatterned. The patterns only emerge
> after an experiment. This unmeasured phenomenal object is not the
> subject of classical physics. So what is left to conclude? It seems to
> me that it is not a very large jump of the imagination to see that
> this unmeasured phenomenal object is in fact a third category, which
> is not subject and not object because it is independent of the two.
> When this assertion is made Complementarity is out from."
> SODV page 17
> "It seems to me that a keystone in a bridge between the Metaphysics of
> Quality and Complementarity may be established if what has been called
> the "unmeasured phenomenal object" is now called the "The Conceptually
> Unknown" and what is called "Dynamic Quality" is also called "The
> Conceptually Unknown." Then the two come together. I would guess that
> the Conceptually Unknown is an unacceptable category in physics
> because it is intellectually meaningless and physics is only concerned
> with what is intellectually meaningful"
> Don't you just hate it
> that Pirsig said, "In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed
> of three things: mind, matter and Quality"?
> But he did. How do we deal with this claim?
> Well Pirsig starts with, ("unmeasured phenomenal object" is now called
> the "The Conceptually Unknown" and what is called "Dynamic Quality")
> And then goes on to says, ("Quality cannot be independently derived
> from either mind or matter. But it can be derived from the
> relationship of mind and matter with each other.") (Quality is not a
> thing. It is an event. It is the event at which the subject becomes
> aware of the object.) Who or What are this subject and object?
> One could conclude,because Pirsig said MoQ in composed of three
> things, that these "unmeasured phenomenal objects" "the conceptually
> unknown", "Dynamic Quality" the "something" that must go into the end
> of the experiment to be "observed" are "mind" and "matter"? How can
> there be a "relationship of mind and matter" without their first being
> two "unmeasured phenomenal objects" MIND and MATTER. Has not religion
> argued for the former, and science the latter,... ...forever. Let me
> say it again MIND AND MATTER are OBJECTS but not in the static sense
> but the dynamics sense of "we know not what" except that they exist, I
> believe the philisophical term is apriori.
Objects in the dynamic sense!? I guess you will call it "foul play", but I feel that Pirsig
had to revert to the proto-moq of ZAMM (the trinity version) to be able to communicate
with an audience that had never heard about LILA and the MOQ proper and whose out-
look was solidly SOM-steeped. You will notice that this quote
> > Pirsig-SODV page 12
> > "In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three things:
> > mind, matter and Quality. Because something is not located in the
> > object does not mean that it has to be located in your mind. Quality
> > cannot...etc
is a slightly altered form of ZMM's (p 332 Corgi Books) :"....the world now, according to
Phaedrus, was composed of three things...etc", but in LILA you won't find this
formulation, rather that the world is composed of the static levels. Preparing the SODV
paper he realized that to start with the Reality=Quality and dynamic/static arguments
and then the levels would leave the audience soundly asleep. ZAMM is a wonderful
book, for us initiated it's about a how P. came to the Q insight ...and the emergence of
SOM, but in LILA Pisig says that its attempts a metaphysics were false starts.
Have I alienated you again?
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 - 16:01:57 BST