From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 06:48:26 BST
Matt and the Masses.
On 28 June you spoke ... slowly:
> Ok. We apparently do not understand each other, though I think more
> accurately, you don't understand me (or Paul).
I think some sore spot was discovered by my pointing to (the
missing criticism of) intellect's "subjective over objective" aspect.
The assertion that intellect is more than S/O becomes ........ as it
is treated as mere 'O' in LILA. This must be probed further.
> _You_ are keeping the subject/object distinction.
> _I_ am not.
> (I know you'll read that as fast as you want, but I typed it slow just
> in case you could sense that.)
I understand, but I doubt the possibility of eliminating it ...in spite
of all good intentions.
> That's important. You think you understand this, but I don't think
> you understand the consequences. Because you want to argue that the
> subject/object distinction is terribly important, and most of
> everybody else wants to follow Pirsig (who, I will argue in another
> post, does not think the _mind_/_matter_ dualism is that important) in
> thinking that we can get rid of it, you have to realize that we are
> _not_ going to take your responses as self-evident.
It puzzles me greatly that you, who debated so hotly with DMB
and Anthony and various "standard-interpreters", now see my
SOL as violating the very same interpretation.
I'm still away from my library, but I think Pirsig says that the SOM
aren't to be discarded rather tucked in under the MOQ's greater
framework. But the thing you obviously don't understand is the
enormous difference between the SOM and the static value of
this divide.
> My arguments are
> _not_ "subjective over objective" counter-arguments. They are intent
> on _eliminating_ the contrast, which doesn't seem like a possibility
> that's occured to you (despite Pirsig pointing this out in ZMM). If I
> _eliminate_ the contrast, then we don't get to use _either_ side to
> characterize what comes out.
In a coming post for Paul I answer his referring to your list of
allegedly S/O "eliminators". I may as well print it here:
"These names and their work "non-S/O"? Show me one who don't
take the mind/matter premises for granted and either "protest" it
by inventing some spiritual mumbo-jumbo that allegedly will
make it go alway or - most usual - declares one aspect to be the
real one. The classical materialist is seldom these days (in my
essay I mention Francis Crick's "A Search for the Soul" book), but
the subjectivists flourish ... all in vain. Only Pirsig has cut the
Gordian Knot by showing how the SOM came to be and has
disposed of it SAFELY by making it the highest level - yet with
the limitation of it being static."
> Its gone, eliminated--that was the
> point. Now, if you want to argue that my, or anyone else's, arguments
> are sub-over-ob, you are going to have to do a lot more work at
> establishing that because _I_ don't think they are.
I did not really think you would admit it, but it looks like I have
touched some sore spot.
> As long as _I_
> don't think they are, you have more work to do in trying to get our
> understandings together. I have seen nothing in your expositions to
> help me understand why I should think either _I'm_ a subjectivist or
> that the subject-object distinction is inescapable (which is probably
> what you're gonna' want to argue).
The S/O won't go away by any chanting about "it's gone" for the
reason that it is a static level and can as little be eliminated as
social and/or biological value can be eliminated.
> Matt:
> This is almost cute. Bo, weren't you the one recently who kept
> blasting everybody for adhereing to the letter of Pirsig too much?
I pick the significant parts while you chose the opposite ;-)
> Bo said:
> The whole point in ZMM is that Socrates-Plato-Aristotles were the end
> of a several-century development. Need we start arguing about THIS?
> Matt:
> No, we don't. I just think you are making very sloppy claims on
> behalf of some true things. I think you need to tighten up your
> presentation. If you did this, I think you might realize a few of the
> extraordinary claims you're making and how far you're actually
> diverging from Pirsig, instead of the pretend places.
The way SOM is integrated in the the MOQ is the only point
where I diverge, but it has ramifications and may sound grave.
Had Pirsig stuck to his original insight in ZMM that intellect is the
mind/matter generator and made the intellectual level the VALUE
of this divide, the MOQ would have been revolution with Pirsig's
a name in the Socrates-Plato-Aristotles league. They instigated
SOM, Pirsig transcended it, everything in between are footnotes.
His letting Phaedrus down is a deep mystery. Remember the
walk down from the mountain in ZMM? Chris says "you aren't
very brave" and he says something about not wanting to become
a Messiah "...too long hours and too little pay". Maybe the then
newly recovered Pirsig thought this "extraordinary (megalomania)
claim" by his former self was the reason for his demise and
wanted to distance himself from it when starting on his MOQ.
That is my hope at least, but on the other hand ...well, it beats
me.
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 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 06:51:30 BST