From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Aug 29 2005 - 20:36:32 BST
Hi Ham
On 28 Aug. you wrote:
> David, Bo and JC
> I suspect that all three of you are conceptually more in tune with me
> than the majority of the MD participants. You are all arguing for
> proper recognition of individual awareness (consciousness or
> intellect) in the Pirsig ontology, but your appeals are tangled in the
> language of SQ/DQ in which you've all been indoctrinated. And that's
> the real stumbing block in our dialogue.
Of course I am MOQ-indoctrinated and speak from its DQ/SQ
premises and as said, intellect is where the subject appears and
hence "individual consciousness", while I take it that you look
upon things from SOM premises, of human beings as an
organism with (a) mind.
> To illustrate my point, let me quote some statements you've made in
> which the MoQ ontology is clearly obstructing your arguments.
> Bo said:
> > Right, "they" - or the subject/object distinction - did not exist
> > before the intellectual level.
> > Yes damn it, that is just what the SOL interpretation says:
> > Subjects and objects, or better the S/O distinction, is a static
> > quality pattern. The intellectual pattern itself.
I took the liberty to erase DM's and JC's entries, I only manage to
speak to one person at a time.
> It's precisely this compulsion to explain the conscious intellect in
> SQ/DQ terms that sabotage your efforts. Thus, the "actor" in your
> perspective is always DQ rather than the individual whom you regard as
> a product of the "intellectual level". Existence, in Bo's words "is a
> static quality pattern ... the intellectual pattern itself".
Come on, I did not say that existence is an intellectual pattern,
merely that the independent SUBJECT appeared with it. At the
social level there certainly was a sense of I different from you, of
humans different from animals and of the living different from
from the dead ...etc, but it was (still is) a non-S/O reality.
> My question to you all is: Why can't you see the individual as the
> Choicemaker -- the single agent in the created world who by virtue of
> his own free will and intellectual determination effects changes that
> make the world more to to his liking?
Yes, it's an enigma why people can't I see things the same way.
Anyway, is humankind the only one that "makes the world to his
liking"? A beaver builds dams to change its environment to its
liking. Ok, ok, I know how the SOM argument goes about animal
instincts, while we have free will ...etc. but I don't buy it
> Strip away the SQ/DQ mystique and this becomes clear as crystal. Once
> you do this, you are free to appreciate the fact that the conscious
> self is a unique creation, and that the individual -- not inanimate
> patterns or levels -- is the primary mover in the development of
> technology, culture and international relations.
Look Ham, one more argument, a bit strange but hear it. Almost
all creatures sleep, consequently there must be some awakening
for them too; a state different from oblivion. An animal roused
from sleep does wake to self-awareness, not to language's: "I am
a ... whatever" and it's my conviction yours is the notorious SOM
fallacy of language as consciousness.
> It is the self-aware
> individual, not insentient Quality, who determines "when the time for
> change is ripe", and who, by valuing his own life and those around
> him, aspires to greatness by seeking an understanding of the universe
> and his purpose in it.
> That "the subject/object distinction did not exist before the
> intellectual level" is meaningless and inconsequential, since it is
> experience that creates our existential perspective in the first
> place.
My assertion is still that the subject/object experience creates
(your) existential perspective, but you turn this upside-down.
But FYI, it's my interpretation that says that the S/O distinction is
intellect. MOQ "orthodoxy" says that SOM is a fairly late
intellectual pattern and that the MOQ is an even later intellectual
pattern, and that much everything are intellectual patterns. I
understand your frustration with that camp, their cloaking SOM in
MOQ terms makes is complete nonsense.
> The philosophy promulgated as MoQ, far from clearing the way for
> greater understanding, in my opinion, impedes our vision by positing
> the individual as a byproduct of a vast, conspiratorial essence called
> Quality -- one author's metaphor for non-material reality -- for which
> there is no empirical evidence and almost no genuine comprehension.
If the MOQ did not solve some enigma for me I would never
have touched it, but it makes sense of a lot of SOM-generated
mess. No empirical evidence? My foot! It's SOM's unassimilated
evidence that made Phaedrus conceive the Quality Idea.
> If you can present your views in plain English rather than SQ/DQ
> terms, I'll be most happy to address them.
My English may fail but are we to discuss the MOQ without using
its vocabulary? I don't get it. But thanks for your philosophical
interest, it's not much of that nowadays.
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 Aug 30 2005 - 00:02:18 BST