Scott, Platt and All.
On 27 Aug Scott wrote:
> I don't deny map-making. What I deny is that there is any mappable
> reality that is not itself another map.
It's a fine line between this and denying map-making ...but I see it.
> 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.
Re. Quantum Mech, I take it to mean that it has demonstrated that the
subject is not separate from the object? Correct, but that is QM interpreted
from Intellect (SOL). From the MOQ (not fully in line with Intellect*) the
Quantum findings are natural because it shows that Intellect's S/O-divide is
not "as it really is", but merely another static level - the highest, but
nevertheless. Your "..not useful in (the Quality) metaphysics" ... says it, but
"...in evolutionary theory" I didn't catch the point of.
[*)The relationship between the MOQ and Intellect can be discussed. It may
be seen in all kinds of positions, at least it is at Intellects "upper" fringe from
where it is able to "see" intellect as a static level]
> 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).
Kant. Well he postulated the "mental filters", but still left something out
there, that's possibly the farthest one may go in a SOM context without
being declared a solipsist or worse, but never mind, your Barfield is a wise
guy. invite him to the MD :-)
*****************
Platt wrote:
> > 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.
I know the "sense of discomfort" after have delivered a message :-) However
did John B. really agree to the map/territory being bogus? He has
maintained the words/reality division all the time and that's another version
of the theme.
> > 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.
Pirsig actually uses the map projection term and I think it makes a difference
...I cling to that at least. My solution is the SOLAQI as you know. Scott
follows me to the SOL (or SOT) stage, about the QI part ...???
> > 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."
"Explanation Level". Hmm. Well Intellect's "explanation" is the S/O
(rational), while Society's "explanation" is the personal (emotional). Ancient
people explained reality as gods/goddesses and the natural phenomena
their moods. Biology's "explanation" is sensual. All value levels are
explanations of experience.
> > If any of you would care to show me how to extricate myself for this
> > quandary, I'd appreciate it.
By doing a (quick) transformation. "Now I am Intellect (S/O), but now I have
moved to the MOQ" (which isn't fully intellectual as said).
IMO as always.
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST