From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 26 2005 - 11:43:56 GMT
Hi Ham,
Sorry about the delay in answering your questions.
> You and I got off to a bad start some time ago, but whatever our argument,
> it pales in the light of your new breakthrough with regard to subjectivity.
> I'm curious as to how you've arrived at this conclusion. Was it by simply
> pouring over the ideas expressed here by Arlo, Ian, Mark, Case, David, et
> al, or was Barfield or some other source the triggering element?
Yep - It was Barfield.
> As you know, I've long been trying to persuade the MoQers that it's a
> mistake to dismiss subjectivity in their zeal to abolish SOM. The notion
> that intellect and intelligence occupy some esthetic domain independent of
> the thinking individual has been my major hangup with Pirsig's metaphysics.
> It not only defies common sense but is contrary to anything I've seen in
> classical philosophy. Nor do I believe that such a bizarre epistemology is
> necessary to support the Quality concept.
The MOQ's opposition to the bulk of classical philosophy is no
accident, as I'm sure you realise. And I don't agree that the MOQ
claims that "intellect and intelligence occupy some esthetic domain
independent of the thinking individual", because such a claim would,
of course, be nonsense. However, I do have sympathy with your
dissatisfaction at Pirsig's treatment of the individual (NOT for any
political reasons, I should add!), and I'm hoping that Barfield and
others can be used as a corrective.
> Since you've asked for opinions, I'm in agreement that existence is
> fundamentally awareness of an 'other', the specific nature and values of
> which are proprietary to the cognizant self. I think we can agree that this
> is an empirical truth.
Undoubtedly - since the 17th century, at any rate.
> The 'cosmic divide' relates insentient otherness to
> subjective consciousness by way of individual experience. As you pointed
> out, "the subject/object divide is fundamental to what we are."
>
> What remains to be known, from my perspective, is how you account for this
> fundamental division. In other words, is this duality your essential
> reality, or do you see it as derived from a primary (uncreated) source?
Duality is certainly _not_ my essential reality. I follow Pirsig's
revolutionary claim that the objective world and my subjective
awareness are both deduced from Dynamic Quality. I follow Barfield's
claim, supported by evidence from the history of the English language,
that Quality had only been treated or filtered in this way (by
English-language speakers, at least) for roughly 400 years.
I'm not sure if Quality is what you would call a "primary (uncreated)
source". To be honest, I find your metaphysical vocabulary a bit
abstruse, in the same way that you find our "level-talk" abstruse. I
do believe that we all participate in shaping and creating Quality.
> That question is what led me to initiate the "Looking for the Primary
> Difference" thread which, now that Reinier has withdrawn from active
> participation, has been left hanging. Is this question of any interest to
> you, or are you content to focus right now on recruiting some support for
> subjectivity?
The question does interest me, but I can envisage a struggle to bridge
our technical vocabularies. Worth a try, though!
> I think you've taken a significant step toward correcting a misconception of
> the MoQ, and will be most interested in following your progress from here.
Thanks for the support!
Regards,
Mike
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 : Sat Nov 26 2005 - 16:58:56 GMT