From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 09:38:08 BST
Hi Scott
On 13 June Scott Roberts wrote:
> Bo said:
> "Theory" sounds a bit innocent, no-one has challenged SOM --
> identified a SOM - before Pirsig. Even Kant started with S/O
> premises and ended with them. I don't try to outwrite you in
> philosophy history, but if called upon ;-)
> Scott:
> Coleridge and Hegel come to mind.
Coleridge I don't know, Hegel rightly protested Kant's "things as
they appear/things in themselves" and said that there is no
distinction between thinking and things, but does this provide any
way out (he said a lot more of course) as long as he didn't identify
any SOM, pointed to its emergence or anything? No, Pirsig is
pretty unique here.
> Scott:
> It is because Pirsig avoids the dilemmas of language that his
> philosophy is inadequate. One must dive into language, equipped with
> the logic of contradictory identity.
This is silly: Phaedrus was confronted with the S/O dilemma and
beat it is by postulating Quality as the creator of the dilemma
itself. Regarding language THERE IS NO DILEMMA! What form
would it have? This:
"Does X exist or is it just language?"
You will see that this back-fires, the question is itself language
and thus useless. It is a "black hole" that swallows everything.
The only way out would be a Metaphysics of Language: an exact
copy of the MOQ, but that would just be aping Pirsig.
The MOQ does not let language demarcate any level shift, rather
making it a high social pattern, the one that DQ "rode" to intellect.
> Bo replied:
> Well, to repeat myself SOM was once taken for granted (and still
> is by 99,99% of the Western population) Can you Matt show me
> anyone referring to a subject/object metaphysics , I mean in the
> sense of it having an origin and maybe a exit?
> Scott:
> Barfield's discussion of the decline of original participation and the
> goal of final participation is just that (origin and exit).
I have repeatedly pointed to Barfield, how his Original
Participation's decline fits exactly with MOQ's social-intellectual
transition. And also how Barfield's "loss of participation" fits
Phaedrus' identification of Aretê with Value itself and his
presenting it as a loss. In a SOL light the development (in ZMM)
described as SOM replacing Aretê is intellect freeing itself from
its social origin. Such a family break is always experienced as a
loss and the MOQ that sees the grand context is a reunion ...or
the "Final Participation"
Bo
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 : Tue Jun 14 2005 - 09:43:14 BST