Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 19:04:47 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Top 50 books"

    Bo (Rebecca, Ant mentioned) --

    > Ham, you really made my day. It looks like the MOQ may be set
    > straight after its long sojourn in SOM-land.

    I'm glad to have "made your day", but whatever I said to Rebecca about your
    effort to modify the MoQ relates only to your recognition of "intellect" as
    a conscious faculty of the individual self. I'm also quite certain that
    nothing I've said is going to "set the MoQ straight", as it is already
    leaning too far astray of
    most people's notion of what reality is.

    Incidentally, I also was mystified by the "qualification" cited in Ant's
    recent statement:

    > I would suggest that Pirsig has only rejected the
    > 'thinking intellect' when this definition isn't qualified.

    Frankly, I don't know if your SOL metaphysics is compatible with my own.
    This insistence on categorizing everything into "levels" seems to me an
    unnecessary complication of the Quality thesis. Yet, here you are,
    steadfastly trying to redefine a level, while the concept (I think) you want
    to get across is not a level matter. (Actually, I'm never quite sure what
    you mean, and it's this lack of clarity that has discouraged me from
    responding to your posts.) As I see it, the "thinking individual" is not a
    level, it's the subjective (conscious) awareness of an objective reality.

    What you may not realize is that I'm not trying to "eliminate" Cartesian
    duality (SOM). Awareness is the modality of human experience and, as such,
    attempting to abolish it is sheer foolishness. All I'm saying is that this
    modality is dependent on a primary cause or source that Pirsig's heirarchy
    of levels doesn't acknowledge. Instead it explains reality as a categorized
    system that creates itself and that views man as only an anomalous
    component.

    Rather than dismiss the conscious human being as a biological anomaly, my
    philosophy starts with self-awareness as the subject, positing all reality
    as an objective "otherness". It's a "subjective" philosophy in the sense
    that sensible awareness is the essential connection between man and the
    Source (Essence). Value comes out of that relationship by virtue of the fact
    that the experience that fills our awareness is the "beingness" that we
    don't possess, yet instinctively respond to as "conditional" value. Unless
    you need to explain the metaphysical dynamics or epistemology of existential
    experience, it's really that simple!

    If you're still interested in discussing this concept, you are most welcome.
    However, as I've stated previously, I don't speak in patterntalk; so any
    reference to patterns and levels will be "redescribed" (to use Matt's
    expression) in common English. Simple constructive propositions, as opposed
    to innuendo and long-winded criticism, will also be appreciated.

    Thanks for the compliments, Bo. I look forward to further discussion with
    you.

    Essentially yours,
    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 : Fri Oct 07 2005 - 20:40:34 BST