From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 22 2005 - 06:34:35 BST
Bo (and Platt)
I've been observing all the BO SOL and spin-off threads for a couple
of weeks, read BO'c SOL paper, and have almost dived in a dozen times,
but have just not had the mental bandwidth to add anything
constructive.
I think Platt is right ... it ain't that complicated. The ZMM p243
figure that Bo dwells on already did it for me. Platt's addition of
"incompleteness' says something to me too. I'm no expert on Godel, but
I am reading Hofstadter at the moment, and we have a recursive pattern
emerging (which is a good thing BTW).
I think in a general sense there is agreement that the SO-view is "an"
intellectual pattern. I think the point is that it is "a classical
intellectual pattern", not some axiomatic closed definition of the
totality of what intellect can ever be - thank god.
Again, I'm no expert, so this is probably dumb, but isn't this just a
classic "excluded middle" problem. Being one thing, doesn't preclude
being something else too - the bane of failed ontologies - the truth,
but not the whole truth.
(Bo has a couple of other key phrases for me, that I'd like to
discuss, but I'll wait till I see what this contribution causes
first.)
Regards
Ian
On 6/22/05, hampday@earthlink.net <hampday@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Platt, Matt, JoVo, Allen, Paul, Bo, et al --
>
> Just a short note on one of the few statements in this thread that I can
> honestly say I understand. Unfortunately, my understanding leads me to
> refute it.
>
> Platt said:
> > Just so, any reality based on the subject/object split (SOM) is going to
> be
> > inconsistent or incomplete. Why? Because it makes no provision for values.
>
> That would be a reasonable complaint if it were a valid assertion. But the
> truth is that values are experienced ONLY in an SOM reality. Finite
> creatures cannot experience the absolute, undifferentiated reality. But
> from the perspective of that essential reality, value would have no more
> meaning than desire. A thing is valuable to us because we do not possess
> it. Absolute reality (Essence) possesses all; it is the perfect
> "embodiment" of value, not its experience.
>
> Here is what Aristotle said about desire. "... the man who desires
> something desires what is not available to him, and what he doesnąt already
> have in his possession; and what he neither has nor himself is-that which he
> lacks-this is what he wants and desires." I think this definition is
> equally true for value, and it is notable for being expressed in the context
> of man's experience.
>
> When we speak of a subject/object "split", the object's value is always
> implied in the subject's awareness. You could say that value is a
> "contingency" of experience, or that differentiated reality is a "trinity"
> rather than a duality. What you can't say is that value is ruled out by a
> subject/object reality. If Pirsig's MoQ "makes no provision for values" in
> SOM, then it is either wrong or incomplete.
>
> I wish I could address the other comments being made here, such as the
> following --
>
> Matt said:
> > I think Pirsig makes a mistake if he says that SOM leaves out values.
> > Much like my redescription of the fall of positivism recently,
> > I think SOM _does_ include values, it just doesn't produce
> > consequences that look any good to us.
>
> Paul said (to Bo):
> > You refer to "inside the MOQ" and a "Quality Universe" as if it were
> > somewhere other than where we already are, right here, right now, all
> > around and inside. I think your "Metaphysics is Reality" belief is a
> > major problem.
>
> Allen said:
> But the MOQ avoids idealism by placing experience first. Here there are
> shades of patterns in the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum or event
> stream or DQ if you like corresponding to an evolutionary development which
> symbolic manipulation has designated as a sq pattern derived from a Dynamic
> process. No mind, no god and no fuss.
>
> Alas, they are beyond my finite understanding!
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Wed Jun 22 2005 - 06:38:34 BST