From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 06:06:06 BST
Matt and Masses
5 July you wrote in response to my logic arrangement
> 1) "The Greek cultural upheaval marks the emergence of what - in MOQ
> - is called the intellectual level."
> As far as I can tell, this is more or less true. Pirsig thinks that
> Socrates marked the emergence of something. In _Lila_, he more or
> less said that it was the ascendency of intellectual patterns.
Good!
> 2) "This upheaval is in ZMM described as the emergence of the
> Subject/Object Metaphysics (SOM)."
> Yeah, ok, as far as I can tell, this is more or less true. In _ZMM_,
> Pirsig more or less calls this the SOM. (Less because, unless I'm
> mistaken, Pirsig didn't coin "SOM" in ZMM. And at any rate, his label
> for the enemy is varied throughout, making the enemy more like a hydra
> then a single-mouthed leviathan.)
OK, the SOM acronym doesn't appear, but there are several
passages that says the same.
> 3) "Thus when we speak about MOQ's intellectual level we speak about
> SOM."
> This is where you have a _lot_ more interpretive work to do. One, you
> have to link ZMM's boogey-man with Lila's (spotty) description of the
> emergence in Greece (and then with his post-Lila work). I don't think
> it is as easy as it seems, and you've simply taken this for granted.
Acceptance of 1 and 2 makes 3 inevitable! But it's correct that
LILA wavers regarding intellect. The level is most often treated as
science and/or knowledge, and this is my grievance: Why just the
objective part when the MOQ is supposed to reject the
subject/object metaphysics?. When addressing intellect itself it
recedes into something I call "intelligence".
> Two, you have to link what Pirsig means by "intellectual level" to
> what Pirsig means by "SOM." This is certainly not as easy as it
> looks, if for no other reason than _Pirsig doesn't do it himself_. If
> Pirsig meant it, why didn't he do it?
Again you are right, but after some reflection Pirsig obviously
began to have second thoughts and in his letter to Paul (Sep
2003) he came a long way toward the SOL. However, he ended
with the "manipulation of symbols" definition which is merely
language.
> Simply pointing to the origins
> of two narratives isn't good enough. You need more than that. Three,
> what _you_ mean by "SOM" is not what everybody else seems to mean by
> "SOM" (so you can't just assume that we'll all agree to that without
> addressing varied uses)
Don't I know? ;-)
> and, as I argued, is not what _Pirsig_ means
> by "SOM" as the name for his boogey-man in ZMM. So you need a better
> argument for drawing out your version of SOM from Pirsig.
What is meant by SOM is clear, and I see no need for it being
drawn into your meatgrind ;-). But again, if point 1 and 2 are
accepted 3 follows logically.
> 4) "The MOQ rejects the SOM which means both its subjective and
> objective aspect."
> One, how could we reject that which is intrinsically us?
Now, here's the heart of the matter! The subject side to SOM is
seen as the self, the "soul". Without going into the cultural history
of the world we see the Greek (SOM) influence on ...on
everything, f.ex. on the newfangled variety of Judaism we call
Christianity where the soul and saving thereof appears. I don't
think Judaism ("the old books of the Bible" as Pirsig says) has
any reference to soul, because it has no (what Pirsig in the letter
calls) intellectual content.
> Two, you
> have done no work in addressing the varied uses of SOM or what it
> means to reject "its subjective and objective aspect." You've spent
> most of your time condemning everyone else to one or the other.
I have often listed variations of the SOM root; mind/matter,
soul/body, psychic/physical, mental/corporeal, culture/nature
(there are surely more) If that is what you mean?
> Three, if the "MoQian standpoint" (the one you stand in that
> (mysteriously) rejects SOM) is linked to Zen enlightenment, you have
> much more work to do in trying to pronounce how they are the same.
> How do you attain the MoQian standpoint?Is it just like Zen? Isit
> something else? Does it just happen? Can you do it while
> philosophizing? How do you talk to other people who aren't in the
> MoQian standpoint? Aren't you in a different reality then them?
How does one arrive at a standpoint? In my younger days I was
oppressed by the SOM and when meeting another person doubly
oppressed I was elated by his presentation of it as something with
a history and the promise of its demise. The Romantic/Classic
didn't survive and I will not say that I immediately saw the snag
with intellect in LILA, but after it struck me, it has grown stronger
and more obvious, as has my wonder why Pirsig would let
Phaedrus down.
> You're right, the fifth point more or less follows naturally, but it
> is more or less disastrous.
Good! Don't worry about the disastrous part ;-)
> Pirsig was quoted:
> From a philosophic idealist viewpoint there is nothing but intellect.
> From a Zen viewpoint it is a part of the world of everyday affairs
> that one leaves behind upon becoming enlightened and then rediscovers
> from a Buddha's point of view.
> Bo commented:
> This is what I have been saying: To you (Matt and Paul) there is
> nothing but intellect. Everything - including the MOQ itself - are
> intellectual ideas. But from a MOQ (Zen) viewpoint intellect is part
> of the static development (the world of everyday affairs) that one
> leaves behind upon understanding the MOQ (becoming enlightened) and
> then looks back upon in a SOL light (rediscovers from a Buddha's point
> of view).
> Matt:
> One, we've never said that there is nothing but intellect. You've
> never established that we've been saying that. You've never done the
> work of engaging us enough to gain a refined understanding of either
> of our's intentions and why we talk the way we do.
Firstly. The Pirsig quote reveals something important. To him a
metaphysics is philosophy and in it there are no way to get
beyond intellect. As a Zen monk however he is the true Phaedrus
again who sees that the MOQ has transcended intellect by
making it a static level of its own.
If you Matt "never said that there is nothing but intellect" it goes
against your claim that the MOQ must be an intellectual pattern.
If it - and all statements about reality - is "in" intellect, then
everything is intellect.
> Two, if the MoQian (Zen) standpoint is one that leaves behind the
> static levels, where is it? Where is this "standpoint"? Wouldn't you
> have to be standing somewhere?
Where was Einstein standing with respect to his claim that
everything is relative? I've seen doubts about his theory based on
this: When speaking about warped space and time it must
necessarily be compared to straight ones ...etc. but physicist
couldn't care less. Relativity WORKS!
> Is it just a bad metaphor for talking
> about enlightenment? Then why are you talking about it? At some
> point, I presume, it becomes more misleading to keep talking about
> enlightenment, because to talk about it is to not be enlightened,
> right? Talking is intellect and all that.
To stick to the Relativity metaphor, the said physicists don't
bother, but use the so-called Lorentz equations to move between
Relativity and Classic (Newton) Physics. In all humility I regard
the SOL to be a transformation between intellect (as SOM) and
intellect as a static level within the MOQ.
> Three, if the MoQian (Zen) standpoint is what is reached when you are
> enlightened, then how do you reach it? Can you reach it by intellect,
> by philosophizing?
The MOQ is somehow "out of intellect" (no level though!) in the
same sense that all levels are out of the former. In the biological
evolution part of LILA Pirsig argues how improbable life is but
even so it is a matter of course now. I guess social and
intellectual values were just as improbable in their time - and just
as matter of course afterwards.
> How could that be, though? Wouldn't that just
> doom you to static existence? So, how is talking about the "SOL
> light," the lantern we get when we become enlightened, help us get to
> enlightenment? And how do we use our newly and mysteriously attained
> lantern to help others find the way?
Regarding the static issue. The MOQ is not static nor is it
dynamic, it is the Quality Reality! The said lantern I've been
waving since God knows when..
> By talking the way you do about things? And how would we know if
> we've
> reached the MoQian/Zen standpoint? Would we know because we think
> exactly like you do, all this SOL stuff? Sounds kinda' convenient for
> you, doesn't it?
It's hard to avoid zealot accusation, but as said up above, when a
chained SOM slave achieves freedom ...etc
> Okay, now I realize I've been putting an overabundance of questions to
> you about your philosophy. So, as I wanted to before, how about we
> start with the textual question. You want to claim that Pirsig's
> original insight is that the intellect is the S/O dualism. I claimed
> that you were wrong (and provided a reading of his text to support my
> claim).
> Pirsig never had that insight in ZMM.
No? Just look at the diagram of the tentative MOQ in ZMM.
Admittedly the Romatic/Classic didn't become the final divide (it
rather corresponds to the social and intellectual levels) but the
fact that intellect is the S/O source is just as valid.
> What'dya say? Ball's in your court.
I say forgive my going so lightly over earlier posts, it's just that
I'm desperate not to be side-tracked from the core issue.
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 Jul 07 2005 - 06:09:25 BST