From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 10:02:15 GMT
Matt, Mike(?) and Multitude.
1 Nov. you wrote to Mike:
> I'm not sure about your suggestions' fidelity to whatever it is Bo has
> been talking about,
Couldn't you manage a little more contempt?
> but so much the worse for fidelity. I attempted
> at some length earlier this year to unearth what the consequences of
> his "SOL" were, but it almost seems like Bo's way of forwarding his
> philosophy is to remain vague and never remained pinned anywhere, so
> one could with a straight face say, "This is Bo's opinion."
I have stated my opinion over and over again, but may repeat it:
THE VALUE OF THE 4TH LEVEL IS THE SUBJECT/OBJECT
DISTINCTION! What's the vagueness about that?
> (DMB
> recently said that Anthony's pretty much said the last word about Bo's
> SOL and I can concur. Back when I first began my long excursus into
> trying to understand Bo, I noticed that Paul, Anthony, DMB and I were
> all in general agreement about what the weaknesses of SOL were, and
> specifically Anthony and I were forwarding the same argument about the
> fatal weakness--that SOL has a self-reference problem; it can't place
> itself anywhere.)
This is the "where does space end" quandary. The universe one
lives in isn't "placed" anywhere, it IS. I pointed to this regarding
the former metaphysics (SOM) that nobody knew of any SOM
before Pirsig, it was how REALITY was assembled "from the
factory" (and Anthony expressed his agreement)
The Quality Universe (when it has replace the SOM Universe)
won't - like its predecessor - have no beginning or end. You may
have noticed that Mike and I have discussed how the MOQ has
created a new universe while its intellectual framework remains
behind as an intellectual pattern. Will that be acceptable to you?
The rest of your post is for Mike and I won't mingle, only this:
> But in relation to what you're suggesting about the inescapability of
> subjectivity, unlike Ham and Descartes, I'm not sure what is so
> momentous about that realization.
Mike's point is that subject (vs object) is a STATIC level, one
stage in the Q-evolution, and that it grew from the social stage.
This is worlds apart from any som-ish view where "subjectivity"
(read intellect or mind) is the starting point. Ham is of course hell
bent on not understanding, while you ....? I must again repeat that
Pirsig postulates that SOM originates with the early Greek
thinkers. Descartes mind/matter variety is a late development.
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 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 13:38:26 GMT