From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 06:28:52 BST
Hi Bo (also David M and JC) --
Like Matt, I have more difficulty with how you express yourself than with
some of the concepts you're arguing for. This may be a semantic problem
with one or both of us -- I don't know. But it's the main reason why I've
been following your posts from the sidelines, withholding my urge to
respond. I wanted to be sure I 'heard you correctly' before jumping in with
comments that may be considered inappropriate.
I think it's commendable that you are dealing with individual consciousness.
It's a major area of contention and confusion in the MoQ that is sorely in
need of clarification. Although it's possible to interpret Mr. Pirsig's
epistemology in a variety of ways, I think you'll agree that the best choice
is one that is consistent with the Quality hypothesis as well as Pirsig's
principle that Quality is "the primary empirical reality of the world".
At the same time (and at least as important to me) there is a need to
establish the role of the "individual" in the Quality thesis. I'm
constantly troubled by the assertions made here that individuality is of
minor consequence, that conscious awareness arises as a byproduct of
Nature's evolution to higher levels of complexity, that the individual self
is a meaningless abstraction whose choices and will to act are mere
reflections of the "intellectual culture" from which it emerges. This
reminds me of Sartre's thoughtless comment that "man is 'unnecessary' ...the
world exists just as well without him."
Initially, I thought you saw this as a misconception for which you had a
better answer. Instead, I see now that your real intent is to do away with
individuality entirely, on the premise that any S/O entity is a "language"
construct, hence fallacious and "unreal". Correct me if I'm wrong, but how
else can can one interpret these statements?
On August 29, responding to my post to you, David and JC, you 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.
>
> 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 assertion is still that the subject/object experience creates
> (your) existential perspective, but you turn this upside-down.
If I read this correctly, what you're saying is that my life-experience and
existential perspective are not really my own, but the possession of a
non-S/O reality over which I have no control. In other words, I do not
experience; I AM experienced by this DQ otherness. I have no autonomy as an
individual; I can only experience what DQ has predetermined for me. I am
but a biological "pattern" in this otherness with no mind or will of my own,
and the best I can hope for is that the course laid out for me by DQ is a
salubrious one.
Of course I "turn this upside down". Why does that surprise you? I cannot
so easily dismiss the S/O reality that is my life-experience. But while
this reality is anthropocentric, it is the creation of an indefinable but
immutable source. Your reality is a total otherness with neither a primary
source nor a role for the individual as its free agent. This ontology
reduces man to a nominalistic illusion, like so many ripples in a pond. I
submit that it is not the direction toward which the MoQ should be heading.
Again, Bo, if I am mistaken, please don't hesitate to correct me. Quite
possibly your reality perspective reflects the general consensus here, in
which case I fear that Pirsig's philosophy offers nothing that can resonate
with the innate spirituality of man or enhance his intellectual quest for
meaning.
With sincere regrets,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 06:30:42 BST