From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 13:36:46 BST
Hi Scott,
Whether it's SO(1) or SO(2) seems irrelevant to me since both are static
subject-object intellectual patterns. As I interpret the MOQ, all thoughts
are static intellectual patterns that emerge after primary value
experience.
Contrary to what you've suggested previously, in writing our posts we're
not responding to DQ -- we're merely manipulating static language symbols
and meaning patterns stored in memory. People like Van Gogh, Einstein and
Pirsig responded to DQ.
Finally, the question of who or what experiences value presupposes the
static S/O split which comes only after the unity of Quality. As William
James pointed out, "This page (post) and the seeing of it are one
indivisible fact." In truth what you value is actually a union of you-
valuing Of course, to express it, we must divide it. Intellect is
divisive from the get go.
Platt
> Before one can evaluate Bo's SOL, a fundamental logical error in the MOQ
> needs to be addressed. That error is to ignore two different meanings of
> the word pair: subject and object. One meaning is to equate 'subject' with
> 'mind' and 'object' with 'matter', which I'll call subject[1]/object[1].
> The other meaning (which I'll call subject[2]/object[2]), covers the X and
> Y respectively in sentences like "X is aware of Y" or "X thinks about "Y",
> or "X values Y". The MOQ dissolves the opposition between subject[1] and
> object[1] by calling each different levels of static patterns of value.
> This makes a certain amount of sense, but does nothing to dissolve the
> opposition between subject[2] and object[2]. This latter opposition is
> simply ignored by the MOQ, which makes the MOQ inadequate as a metaphysics.
> I've raised this issue several times, but no MOQ defender has dealt with
> it.
>
> The reason it needs to be dealt with is that Bo's SOL is talking about
> subject[2]/object[2], not subject[1]/object[1]. This can be seen easily
> enough when the object of thought is another thought. Bo is essentially
> correct when he says of human intellect that its value is in the S/O
> divide, when that is taken to mean the S[2]/O[2] divide. (I disagree with
> him in that I don't think this value in the divide only occurs in human
> intellect -- I would say that all value occurs in an
> Intellectual/Quality/Consciousness divide, also known as contradictory
> identity -- but that is a separate discussion). So the fourth level
> consists of this divide occurring in physical beings, known as humans. For
> a an extensive discussion of the value of the S[2]/O[2] divide, see
> Barfield's "Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry".
>
> Pirsig responded (in LC) to Bo's general drift by noting that certain
> intellectual acts are not S/O, in particular mathematics. Here again, not
> making the distinction between [1] and [2] muddies the discussion. If I am
> thinking about rocks, then the object of thought is O[1] and O[2], but if I
> am thinking about the Pythagorean theorem , then the object of thought is
> only O[2]. But there is a further complication in that the Pythagorean
> theorem only becomes O[2] after I have thought about it. That is, during
> the thinking, there is no "thinking about", there is just the thinking. So
> during the mathematical thinking, Pirsig is right that there is no S/O
> divide -- the thought is the object of thought, but this can only be
> discerned when reflecting on the thought, and reflection is S[2]/O[2].
> Nevertheless, can one say that mathematical thinking is a transcendence of
> S[2]/O[2]? Perhaps. What is the case is that in a certain sense all good
> thinking is mathematical. If I am thinking as a scientist about rocks, what
> I am doing is working with concepts, not particular rocks. An experiment
> with rocks is a testing of the concepts. But, again, this is leading into
> other issues. But the point is that without a correction to the MOQ such as
> SOL, there is no way to address them. And one also needs to keep the
> distinction between the two meanings of S/O in mind.
>
> - Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 13:36:52 BST