On 25 Apr 2002 at 12:04, ehallmark@macalester.edu wrote:
> Its important to note that subjet and object is entirely different
> from subjective and objective.
Hi Elliot
Phew! Me making a claim of ".......an objective reality outside of
perception". OK, I see your point, but wait maybe you'll understand from
the rest of this post.
Listen: The "Objective Reality versus Perception" is one of the the
umpteen dualisms spawned by SOM and when the MOQ says that
SOM is invalid and subsumed by its own Dynamic/Static duality where
the subject/object is a subset within the static half ....(inhale)... then the
objective reality in contrast to (subjective) perception evaporates! If
anyone comes along and says this still matters.....like the "What can we
know" thread, it only shows how hard it is to grasp the Quality Idea.
Now, the said first axiom of the MOQ (that SOM is invalid) may be
regarded as nonsense and rejected, and I welcome Struan Hellier any
day because his attacks were dead centered upon this fundamental
issue (at least before he turned sour on Horse), but these arch-somish
objections made by alleged moq adherers kills me. Sorry nothing
personal, but it's so frustrating that the basics of the MOQ is so
monumentally neglected.
> When you
> think subject and object, think sentances (subjects and objects of
> sentances).
Exactly, and the very reason for my SOL idea (that SOM is best
subsumed by becoming MOQ's intellectual level). All efforts to rid us of
the S/O divide is as effective as gnawing off our own teeth and thus it
must find a place inside the static sequence of the the MOQ.
One thing Elliot: I give you credit for distinguishing between 'subject'
and 'subjective' ...etc. As everyone knows Pirsig says the two lower
levels are "objective static patterns" and the two upper "subjective" ditto
but I find it useful to regard intellect as THE VALUE OF
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TWO, but - again - your accusation
> You yourself make a claim about an
> objective reality (one that exsists outside of perception), falling
> into the same distinction that you say should not be made.
... is a gross misunderstanding. It's only across the Dynamic/Static a
subject/object distinction is forbidden. As said Pirsig has one way of
"absorbing" the subjective/objective dualism, while my SOL can be said
to absorb the VALUE of the subject-object. Thanks again Elliot, this was
one important observation.
> Pirsig rebels against the "I" vs"You" or "it" distinction
> (i think, i really could be wrong here, please someone kick me hard if
> i am). The whole everything exsists in the mind (the One Mind as
> Buddhists call it, i say this because Pirsig is awfully close to
> Buddhist ideas), which is where the quality event happens and draws an
> "I" and an object out of the abyss. Although the One Mind is neither
> and both subjective and objective (because these are just words,
> delusions and illusory distinctions), when we discuss this world you
> need to use either a subjective or objective POV, or else please
> define and describe a POV that is neither, id really like to know.
This is correct enough, but the Western mind just shrugs at these
obvious things. For many years Alan Watts (The Way of Zen) was my
favourite, I sensed that he (and Buddhism) said something terribly
important, but I did not understand it - only with Pirsig did that happen.
In my opinion the MOQ is a bridge between East and West ...erected
from the western bank and thus accessible for us. But as with
somification (westerification) of it, a buddification (easternification) of it
is also "poison". The unadulterated MOQ is the best tool to understand
both worlds.
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 - 16:02:14 BST