From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 04:25:35 BST
Hi Platt,
I think the problem is that sometimes people dismiss an argument as "SOM"
because the person made the mistake of speaking of things as if they really
existed, as if people really had experiences, etc. That just seems silly to
me - people really do have experiences, things really exist.
Pirsig says that at the top of SOM there are subjects and objects. I don't
see how two things could be at the top. Does "throwing out SOM" mean simply
saying that Quality is at the top? That's fine with me, because it leaves
subjects and objects immediately below Quality, it doesn't throw them out.
That's what I meant by augmenting SOM with an understanding of how Morality
is primary.
Platt quotes Pirsig:
>"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.
Look in Bibles, listen to your family at dinner, listen to your teacher or
preacher or neighbor, read Shakespeare, you'll find lots of morals. What,
these instruments aren't objective enough? Well, you just need to calibrate
them better, adjust them for historical skew. An uncalibrated microscope
won't give you very objective results either.
>There aren't any there. They are all in your head. They exist only in your
>imagination.
Yes, but they were put there by real things which are visible if you look in
the right place. The moral pattern has to be propogated by something,
Pirsig says they are propogated and supported by the level underneath them.
>From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world
>is a completely purposeless, valueless place.
How does the language "pattern of value" give value? How does simply saying
that "DQ gives purpose" give purpose? Isn't that pretty tautological? How
will people seeing the world and the people and things in it as patterns of
value, and not real things, make them respect people and their things more?
Seems to me it leaves it just as purposeless, and makes people more callous
to their shared environment. At least in SOM, we believe that pain really
hurts someone, and isn't just a metaphysical pattern. In SOM, purpose and
value come from the culture, and SOM doesn't deny that the culture really
exists, does it?
>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. :-)
Yes, that's right, because the only thing morally wrong with being lazy is
that it is morally wrong. It isn't arrived at rationally, it is just
percieved through experience, we can't help it if we believe that something
is immoral or moral. There are rational reasons of prudence and ethics to
not be lazy, but the only thing morally wrong about it is that it is
something we shouldn't do, we are expected to not be lazy. Morality can
fall apart if people stop believing that morality itself is its own
justification. Keyes understands that, and I don't think he is working for
the Giant, he respects human dignity instead. He doesn't put the corporate
economy first. (Bauer was pretty cool too. Were you a gwb man right from
the start of the campaign?).
Johnny
>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: RE: MD MOQ human development and the levels
>Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:57:02 -0400
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 04:26:07 BST