From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jun 07 2003 - 00:57:02 BST
Hi Johnny,
> Thanks for clearing this up. If all you mean by "throwing out SOM" is
> changing the language from 'object' to 'pattern of value' then I'm fine
> with that, it doesn't seem to be throwing out SOM, just rephrasing it
> (PoVPoVM?).
>
> I'd prefer a less aggressive, less zealotrous phrase than "throw out"
> though. There is nothing about SOM that needs to be thrown out.
Oh, but there is. As Pirsig explains:
"The defect is that subject-object science has no provision for morals.
Subject-object science is only concerned with facts. Morals have no
objective reality. You can look through a microscope or telescope or
oscilloscope for the rest of your life and you will never find a single moral.
There aren't any there. They are all in your head. They exist only in your
imagination. From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world
is a completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything.
Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like
machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally
wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide.
There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just functions.
Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history,
was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?" (22)
No wonder you wanted to vote for Alan Keyes. :-)
> In my opinion, on seeing a bear, the "MoQ guy"
> becomes an "SOM guy" right quick, and that's why I think you can't throw
> out SOM, it is silly to think we can or should.
In my opinion, on seeing a bear the SOM guy becomes an MoQ right quick
because the first thing he's aware of is the quality of the experience
that confronts him. Later he can bluster in SOM language, "I ain't a-
sceered of no stinkin' barr,." or with resignation, "Put your head between
your legs and kiss your a--- goodbye." Either way, quality (or the lack of
it) comes first.
> The MoQ fosters a deeper and more mature understanding of experience, and
> most importantly to me, it puts morality back out in plain view on center
> stage, the star of the show. I guess if you feel that SOM eclipses that
> understanding, or prevents it, then yes, it should be thrown out. But I
> feel it doesn't eclipse MoQ or prevent an understanding of the moral
> ontological basis of subjects and objects.
"A deeper and more mature understanding of experience . . ." You can't
ask much more from a book, a philosophy, a metaphysics. That's what I get
out of the MoQ, too. That we have a different view of the importance of
subjects and objects doesn't detract one bit from the values we've both
gained from reading and discussing Pirsig's pioneer work. The fact that
we've had the opportunity to exchange ideas with some mighty fine people
in the process is a splendid bonus.
Platt
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 Jun 07 2003 - 01:00:27 BST