Platt and all,
I don't deny map-making. What I deny is that there is any mappable
reality that is not itself another map. I object to the phrase "the map
is not the territory" because, though it is useful enough in a lot of
situations (those for which science is especially good at exploiting, up
to but not including the interpretion of quantum mechanics), it misleads
in others. One is metaphysics. Another is poetry. Another is
evolutionary theory.
In the introduction to *Saving the Appearances", Barfield points out
that, though we know (since Kant, and driven home by quantum mechanics)
that we supply all the form of what we perceive, we tend to immediately
forget it. Any complete metaphysics (and in this respect I consider LILA
incomplete) needs to keep it in mind. Perception has more in common with
understanding a language than with being a mirror. But in our current
(Fallen) state, we don't realize it, and *as a result* we can think in
SOL. Pre-intellectual humanity (according to Barfield, and I find him
convincing) could read it in one way, with the sense that the things of
nature had an intelligence "on the other side" of the things (from the
perceiver) and hence they knew spiritual realities (they listened to
them, they did not make them up). (We eventually will move to be able to
read them in another, non-dualist way; no pre/trans fallacy here).
So the point of all this is that to think of the things of nature as
"just out there", as a territory to be mapped, is a SOM product. It is
better to think of them as signs we don't know currently know how to
read, that is, as language.
Another way to look at this:
Consider the rules of football versus playing a game of football. I
think Pirsig's menu metaphor was to emphasize this difference. So far so
good: you can't know what it is like to play football by reading the rules.
On the other hand, you cannot play the game of football without the
rules, which means that in playing football one is "living" the rules.
One also lives a great mass of other rule sets, like the laws of
physics, and social norms (eg not cheating), and so forth. So now ask
the question, if one can subtract all the rule sets, is there anything
left? My answer to this is: only DQ, the unmappable. Anything else you
can identify is a rule, ie, sq., and a rule is a piece of language,
some, like the rules of football, spoken by people when they play
football, others, by atoms, all by Quality. Like the man said, "In the
beginning was the Word".
Sorry to be more lyrical than reasoned in all this. I do have a more
step-by-step account, but it is quite long, and not in electronic form.
I hope to present it in some way eventually.
- Scott
Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Scott, John B., Gary, Bo, Wim, Dan, All:
>
> In responding to Gary's questions I used the old map/territory metaphor.
> But as I did so I felt a vague sense of discomfort, fearing that I had
> inadvertently fallen into the SOM trap. Then, in reviewing some previous
> posts I noticed Scott said that map/territory "is ultimately as a bogus as
> the distinction between subject and object" and John B. agreed. I
> believe Bo has expressed similar reservations about the map/territory
> metaphor though I can't find a specific notation.
>
> However, Pirsig seems to be comfortable with the metaphor. In Chapter
> 8 he compares the MOQ to a North Pole map as opposed to the
> standard Mercator map. Also, in note 42 in Dan Glover's "Lila's Child"
> Pirsig says, ". . . the intellect is the manipulation of language-derived
> symbols for experience . . ." This sounds like map-making to me.
>
> Perhaps the answer lies in the observation Bo made recently that to
> explain something we have to use SOM (giving me the idea that the
> Intellectual Level might well be called the "Explanation Level.") So in
> trying to explain the MOQ, we fall into SOM assumptions out of
> necessity. Scott seemed to agree when he wrote, "all we can know are
> maps."
>
> If any of you would care to show me how to extricate myself for this
> quandary, I'd appreciate it.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST