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

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Oct 09 2005 - 09:33:29 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Any help"

    Hi Scott

    7 Oct. you wrote:

    > Rebecca said:
    > > Another puzzle I've been toying with (suggestions from the group
    > > would be more than welcome on this one): Do Aristotle's Categories
    > > have Subject/Object logic 'hardwired' into their organization?y
     
    > Bo said:
    > Because Aristotle, according to Pirsig, is the first SOM
    > "mechanic" who started to categorize the more lofty ideas of
    > Plato's, all his work is subject/object-ish.
     
    > Scott:
    > I understand Aristotle's primary division being not subject/object but
    > matter/form. And what is curious is that his matter/form division
    > sounds very much like DQ/SQ, (matter, or substance, is undivided, has
    > no pattern, while form is, obviously, pattern) but with the important
    > difference that for Aristotle, the driver of change was form, that God
    > is the form of form, and so on. That is, he privileges form over
    > formlessness, while Pirsig privileges formlessness over form. Anyway,
    > I don't see Aristotle as being any more subject/object-ish than
    > Pirsig.

    You have a very good point here Scott. The respective "divides"
    with Plato's and/or Aristotle's was the start of a new metaphysical
    reality. To Plato Ideas was what everything else was shadows of,
    while Ari's Substance was the source.

    The important thing is your observation that Substance/Form is
    "curiously like DQ/SQ" which shows that the MOQ is a jump to a
    new metaphysical reality ... from a totally different one. And
    disproves that SOM is just another "quality metaphysics"
    (Q=S/O).

    Your further notes about what drives the change - what made
    new shadows appear with Plato and new forms spring forth with
    Aristotle - and if he (Ari) privileged the latter is interesting, but I
    don't think they cared much about that. Pirsig privileges DQ over
    SQ, that is sure, but it is the DQ/SQ divide which is MOQ's
    nucleus.

    > Bo said:
    > You may know your Aristotle better than I, but the way Pirsig saw the
    > development of SOM (in ZMM) Plato's Idea vs Appearance (ideas the real
    > thing) was transformed by Ari to Substance vs Forms (substance his
    > real thing). Pirsig says that with Aristotle "our modern scientific
    > understanding of reality was born".

    > Scott:
    > No, for Aristotle, everything is both form and substance -- both are
    > needed for something to exist, and as mentioned, for Aristotle, form
    > is the driver of change, not substance.

    OK, OK I you must. That substance had to attain a form (for
    things to be) and that shadows only were visible to humans is
    plain ... in the same way that value only appear as static patterns.

    > Rebecca said:
    > > If you interpret Subjective/Objective within the MOQ framework using
    > > the definiton of Intellect I just gave you get: Something that is
    > > 'Objective' is just really really socially accepted, 'Subjective' is
    > > less accepted socially. The MOQ says it doesn't matter what
    > > 'society' says - it's about QUALITY.
     
    > Scott:
    > You want to be careful about confusing two different meanings of
    > 'subject' and 'object'. One meaning, which I have been calling S/O[1],
    > is the distinction between inside and outside, or mind and non-mind,
    > is what you are referring to here in the common use of 'subjective'
    > and 'objective'.

    > The other meaning (S/O[2]) is what Bo is using in
    > talking about the value of intellect being the S/O divide, where O is
    > anything (mental or material, or social, etc.) that is being thought
    > about.

    Hmmm. Right now I couldn't get my biological computer to see
    those two S/O's or the importance of this distinction, but they may
    be valid. I'll keep thinking

    > Just a cautionary note. Unfortunately, Pirsig didn't
    > distinguish between the two either. The MOQ, as presented in Lila,
    > gives arguments for overcoming the S/O[1] division, but has no
    > arguments for overcoming the S/O[2] division, except through appealing
    > to faith in mystical revelation.

    Likewise.

    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 : Sun Oct 09 2005 - 09:37:51 BST