From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 07:29:59 GMT
Greetings, Michael --
I received your message in my personal Outlook Express box, curiously not
the box normally reserved for philosophy-related e-mail. It refers to a
post I had addressed to you at the end of last month.
> Well Ham! Little did I realise when writing my post
> that I was giving you the chance to play the misunderstood
> hero of the movie, barely showing his exasperation as he
> thinks "can't you see this is what I've been telling you all
> along???" It didn't cross my mind.
I may be a renegade or villain in your movie, but hardly a "hero". On the
contrary, you're the real hero for having the guts to proclaim that
subject/object is fundamental to what we are. Since joining this forum two
years ago, I've tried to express the reasons for my disenchantment with the
Pirsig Quality Heirarchy. The most glaring shortcoming, as I see it, is the
author's dismissal of the individual as the awareness locus (i.e., subject)
of objective existence. I've had some support from Platt and Reinier on
this issue, but Reinier has left us and Platt continues to debate politics.
> So it looks like we might have some basis for a discussion,
> at last. I'll cross over to your "Primary difference" thread
> tomorrow and see what's been happening there - I'd been
> skim-following it until a few weeks ago. I stopped because,
> although I occasionally came across something I could
> engage with, I found most of your abstractions a bit
> inscrutable, and I couldn't see much relevance to my
> line of thought. But maybe I've found a way in, we'll see.
Nothing of significance has been posted under "Primary Difference" since
Reinier's departure. While there have been some attempts to parse the
intellectual level in such a way that it would account for subjectivity, it
has become increasingly obvious to me that Pirsig's collectivist ideology
rejects individualism as well as the common understanding of intellect,
consciousness, and value-sensibility as the exclusive property of the indivi
dual subject. Since I refuse to accept 'levelist' arguments as support for
alternative theories, I've sat out most of the past month's discussion.
(Apparently, you haven't made much headway either.)
You probably find my abstractions "inscrutable'' for the same reason that I
find yours. I don't speak 'levelese' or semiotics; you do. I don't see
existence as a multi-level heirarchy, nor do I think of consciousness as a
"complex biological pattern". I accept the self/other dichotomy for what it
is -- the means by which the value of the Primary Source can be realized
autonomously. I maintain that conscious awareness is proprietary to each of
us, that we are all free to prioritize our values and make the choices that
express our essential reality.
If you believe you've found "a way in" to my philosophy, I invite you to
review my essay on "Subjectivity and the Autonomy of Freedom" posted this
week at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm. It may be possible to
"restructure" this concept in MoQ terms that are more meaningful for the MD.
I wouldn't even attempt to do this; but if any of it makes sense to you, I
would hope that your grounding in the MoQ might enable you to make a
statement -- even if it's a criticism of the concept -- that would at least
be understood by those of your persuasion. If so, you would be doing me an
enormous favor.
Thanks for getting back to me, Mike.
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 : Sun Nov 27 2005 - 07:55:08 GMT