From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 17:45:24 BST
Hi Bo,
Bo previously:
>>> YES!! But how does it incorporate the two? Surely not with SOM as an
>>> "inferior intellectual pattern" or in some metaphysical
>>> waste-basket.
>
>> I have been thinking about your objection to a person's metaphysics as
>> an intellectual pattern or set of intellectual patterns, but I still
>> don't see the problem. SOM is a lens through which the SOMist will
>> view experience. It is a filter for his concepts, while for the
>> MOQist, SOM is itself a concept. The SOMist is not aware that he
>> participates in propagating the SOM intellectual pattern, but he does
>> nonetheless.
>
> Interesting even if you don't see any problem with "...a person's
> metaphysics as an intellectual pattern". A strange formulation, as if
> metaphysics are programs we constantly "download".
Are you suggesting that people generally don't choose between a bunch of
available metaphysics? I agree. SOM is part of the Western worldview. It
isn't explicitly chosen and it doesn't need to be specifically taught. But
if its isn't an intellectual pattern, then what could it be?
According to the MOQ our only choices for what it is are static inorganic,
biological, social, and intellectual patterns, DQ, or a forest of static
patterns. You want to say that the S/O divide is the intellectual level
itself rather than being contained in the intellectual level, but everything
but DQ is supposed to be patterns of value. So again, what is the S/O
divide if not a static intellectual pattern keeping the available choices in
mind?
>I must ask you
> (as I did Rick): How many metaphysics do you know?
I don't know of anything else called a "metaphysics of ______" or "______
metaphysics", yet I if I did some research I'm sure that I could provide a
very long list of isms that include an explicit metaphysical position, e.g.
objectivism, materialism, realism, idealism. Pirsig's term SOM is a
category for all these isms in contrast to an MOQ.
>What I protest
> is the MOQ as a pattern of an intellect I define as the value of the S/O
> divide. But you obviously start from the mind-intellect definition, no
> wonder you see no problem.
>
> "SOM a lens through which the somist view experience"...etc. Exactly!
> "A filter for his concepts? Er ...if you by concepts mean language and
> that language (for the somist) is the subjective part of experience
> ...Correct, but I feel that there is some other meaning which emerges
> in the next part "...while for the MOQist, SOM is itself a concept".
In place of "concept" read "pattern of experience." The SOMist infers
patterns based on a certain set of assumptions that he doesn't realize that
he makes. The MOQist consciously postulates that reality is value and works
from there inferring patterns of value.
>
> The true moqist would formulate it this way "...while for me SOM is the
> Q-intellect with its language (concepts)/real world divide.
You want to say that this divide is not a pattern of value but rather that
it is Q-intellect itself (a term that Pirsig never used as far as I know),
while Pirsig says that everything is either a static pattern of value or
DQ. What type of pattern, then, is Q-intellect and its 'language
(concepts)/real world divide '?
(Also, I don't know that you can speak for "the true MOQist" as your MOQ
differs from Pirsig's. That's okay, Pirsig suggested that many MOQ's are
possible and that his would not be the final word. What is important in any
MOQ is that we see value as primary reality. I'm glad to discuss Bo's MOQ
with you and glad that you are willing to consider my ideas.)
> What your next point is supposed to show I'm not sure but "all
> humans will participate in very similar biological patterns ...etc" I take
> to mean that we generally look the same, while societies are wildly
> different.
We all breathe, feel pain, get sick, bleed, require food and shelter, etc.
>> I just see this idea of consistency as an
>> answer to the ZAMM question about why all people don't experience
>> Quality the same way...
> I believe this is valid, it takes some time to shift into Steve-mode.
Thanks for making the effort.
Steve
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 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 17:44:58 BST