hello everyone
Bodvar wrote:
Yet, Inorganic and Organic value as matter doesn't quite jell with
me. Life is made up of matter all right, but it is supposed to be a
realm of its own. Likewise Social value as mind!? It could with as
much reason be said to be matter too as it is made up of living
organisms made up of matter.
Bodvar, it seems to me one of the reason Pirsig places the inorganic and
biological layers as objects is because they 'exist' in actuality, while the
social and intellect levels exist, according to the Metaphysics of Quality,
but not in actuality. the way the four levels operate is like the dance of
li-la, a burst of actuality followed by a burst of non-actuality, each
negating the other on the way to Dynamic freedom and back again within an
ever regenerating flux.
social value as mind...i can go along with that because i do not see mind as
something inorganic and inside my head only. i think that is a far too
simplistic point of view, and that the brain acts as a receiver of sorts,
yes, but is not responsible for creating our thoughts any more than a radio
is responsible for creating the music it plays. the inorganic molecules
themselves play a direct role in consciousness, true, but not in social
values.
the social and intellect levels are subjective me which cannot be pinned
down in any way. try it. ask yourself, who am i? what is me? there is no
answer... and if we view this from a subject/object point of view, we would
say, now wait a minute...my inorganic and biological mind are objects? and
the social and intellect levels, that which i cannot pin down, is subjective
me? that cant be right! its backwards!
when the Metaphysics of Quality is used though, it makes perfect sense. in
fact, its a stroke of genius, no doubt about it.
Bodvar wrote:
Also - and this is my gravest -
objection: Subject-objectivism cannot - and should not - be gotten
rid of, it's VALUABLE; it has given us civilization as we know it.
Seeing it as the Static Intellectual Pattern of Value solved it all
for me. It was the highest GOOD, but being static it was still
subordinate to the overall Dynamic Quality; it was not a
metaphysics any more; the subject-object division is not fundamental;
AS IT IS, but a mere STAGE in the unending quality climb towards
betterness.
Bodvar, i agree that we cannot drop subject-objectivism. we only need to
change our perceptions of them.
best wishes to all
glove
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Bohr.html
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST