From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Wed Aug 31 2005 - 08:26:55 BST
Bo,
Putting it this way I can completely agree with your definition of subject/object related to the intellectual level. Still not sure on your entire definition though :-)
But thanks for your support on the metaphysical/ethical issue, and yes you're right, subject and object are created on a metaphysical / intellectual level.
Best regards,
Reinier.
>Ham and Reinier
>
>27 Aug. hampday@earthlink.net wrote to Reinier who had written
>
>I comment Reinier first:
>
>> > I would argue very much in favour of the MoQ as a metaphysics.
>> > I much more like the metaphysical aspects then the ethical.
>> > (Almost every ethical discussion about the MoQ on this list goes
>> > nowhere.) This is not to say I see the MoQ as a substitute for
>> > religion, far from that. Equalizing DQ with God serves no other
>> > purpose then getting the dreaded G-word in the discussions.
>
>I very much agree with this. I have always felt embarrassed when
>people try to find some ethical guide in the MOQ. It's "all is
>morals" does also mean that there is "no morals" in the ethical
>sense. In its rising static moral system the social level is where
>ethics occurred.
>
>> > The assertion made by someone about the statement 'Quality creates
>> > object and subject' is, I think, a flaw. Pirsig doesn't say that
>> > quality creates object and subject in a physical sense.
>
>"In a physical sense" ;-). Maybe not but certainly in a
>metaphysical sense. It is the static intellectual level IMO.
>
>> > The whole
>> > point is that object and subject do not exist.
>
>Right, "they" - or the subject/object distinction - did not exist
>before the intellectual level.
>
>> > All that exists is
>> > quality, Dynamic (or un-valued) or Static (or valued). Well to be
>> > more precise, only dynamic quality would exist, static quality is
>> > dynamic quality seen through judgmental glasses.
>
>I agree completely.
>
>> > Subject and object
>> > are only that, valued quality, or static quality patterns.
>
>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.
>
>HAM:
>> For what it's worth, I like that analysis -- and your emphasis on the
>> metaphysics. I really don't see how the sophists here can shoot holes
>> in what you've stated. More significantly, it demonstrates in two
>> short paragraphs what is needed to make the MoQ a logically workable
>> metaphysics.
>
>The SOL interpretation makes it workable, but for some reason
>MOQ orthodoxy refuses to accept the inevitable.
>
>> Now that you've shown us the problems, how do you propose to resolve
>> them?
>
>> One suggestion, which I've pointed out before, is that if the world we
>> see "through judgmental glasses" is defined as "existence", then the
>> Dynamic Quality that we don't see must transcend that existence.
>
>Agree 100%
>
>> For
>> that reason, rather than asserting that "all that exists is Quality",
>> I would say that Quality is the primary or essential reality. (Let
>> the scholars battle over whether DQ logically "exists" or not.) In
>> any case, that "we experience" is the pivotal point of existence.
>> Without the locus of individual awareness there is no existence.
>
>I would have liked to continue my agreement - and maybe we
>agree only have different slants - however, individual awareness
>smacks of SOM's mind/matter. According to the MOQ
>"humankind" are all levels - or "awarenesses" if you like - and it
>was the (at any time) top awareness that reacted dynamically and
>created the next awareness level.
>
>"Individual awareness" is intellectual awareness (only with
>intellect the individual subject occur) and - correct - with intellect
>the subject/object existence came to be, but DQ has from the
>intellectual base gone on to a new Quality existence
>
>> Is there Quality without the experience of it, then? There, you see,
>> is Pirsig's dilemma. If he answers 'yes", he's a transcendentalist;
>> if his answer is 'no', he's a nihilist: there is no point in
>> existence.
>
>Please Ham, don't talk until you understand the MOQ. First of all
>it says that Quality=Experience=Reality. Thus your dilemma
>dissolves - unless you insist on the intellectual point of view?
>
>> As the MoQ now stands, man just happens to be here with no
>> cosmic purpose behind his existence. It's not enough to say that the
>> world moves toward "betterness" simply because there is Quality. Why
>> even bother with an undifferentiated essence if it has no teleological
>> meaning?
>
>Up through the years people have suggested new metaphysics
>based on other grand concepts (I ought to have made a list) and
>MEANING is one of those that qualifies for a MOM. So there is
>no need for us to rediscover the wheel, Pirsig has already done it
>by choosing the mother of them all - QUALITY. "Meaning" and all
>the rest is incorporated in it.
>
>> That question, too, must be be resolved in order to complete >
>the thesis. (You can see there's a lot of work remaining.)
>
>Again try to understand the MOQ before cooking up problems
>with it
>
>Most friendly
>
>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
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
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 Aug 31 2005 - 09:02:19 BST