Dear Platt and Gary,
Platt summarized 31/8 11:20 -0400 my position as:
'The map/territory is a metaphysical "first cut" of Reality, as is
subject/object. "As a metaphor I don't see a problem in it, as long as you
are clear what IS the metaphysics that you want to use as context."'
You seem to misunderstand me here: I meant that the
map/territory-distinction should NOT be seen as a 'first' (metaphysical)
'cut of Reality', but as a metaphor. I agree with your comments: that 'the
map/territory split is really the same as the subject/object split' and that
the MoQ acknowledges these splits as secondary splits of Reality AFTER the
first split into Dynamic and static quality has been made and static quality
has been split into the four levels. Pirsig wrote indeed (not in 'Lila' as
far as I know, but only in www.moq.org/forum/emmpaper.html) that inorganic
and biological patterns of values can be associated with 'objects' and
social and intellectual patterns of values with 'objects'. I think the
dividing line can also be drawn between the intellectual and the lower
levels or between the inorganic and the higher levels however, depending on
your point of view. It depends on the patterns of values you identify with.
(If you identify with social or social + intellectual patterns of values,
the divide is between the social and biological levels. If you identify only
with intellectual patterns of values, the divide is between the social and
intellectual levels. If you identify with biological, biological + social or
biological + social + intellectual patterns of values, the divide is between
the inorganic and biological levels.)
I fully agree again with:
'So long as I specify the metaphysical context of my remarks (when there's a
possibility of confusion), I and my audience should be able to understand
one another.'
Gary wrote 31/8 9:16 -0700:
'From the perspective of how we humans perceive reality, the 1st person
limited perspective, the first cut is map/territory, which is the same as
Internal/External and the same as Subject [the perceiver]/Object [the
perceived]. This perspective is not ... the perspective of MOQ. Pirsig is
attempting to make a map from a 3rd person omniscient vantage point.'
Pirsig tried to show that (1st person) perception (or broader: experience)
IS Quality, that the first cut we make IS static/dynamic (or patterns and
unpatterned experience) and that the map/territory, internal/external and
subject/object cuts are only secondary cuts in static quality (the patterned
part of our experience).
Jumping from a hot stove does not require a 3rd person omniscient vantage
point...
Obvously 'Lila' was not enough to make this clear to you.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:06:24 BST