From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 09:01:36 BST
Scott and All
On 16 Aug. you wrote:
> [Barfield, What Coleridge Thought, p. 183-4, published 1971]
> "And we should be drawing attention...in particular to the Triad:
> Differentia, Concordantia, and Contrarietas, mediating descent from
> the absolute to the relative.
....snip
You are so much better read on philosophy than me. I once was but
after Pirsig my search was at an end so to say. Maybe not very smart
when I see your results. Is this really Barfield on Coleridge speaking
about "metaphysics of qualities? The plural form mars it a little but
still. Wow! I prostrate myself.
Me previously:
>>OK then a Metaphysics of Imagination where the last static
>>imagination is the S/O divide, but Quality is
>> better!
> Well, no. Imagination, to Coleridge, is in contrast to the
> "understanding and the senses" referred to in the quote above. It is
> precisely not static, but (in MOQ terms) involves DQ. For Coleridge,
> the S/O divide is a case of the DQ/SQ divide, not a static idea. This
> is where Squonk is misguided in saying "there are no subjects and
> objects in the MOQ". If that were so, the MOQ would be useless, like
> theology would be if it left out sin.
Most apt. On Squonk too. The SOM is part and parcel of the MOQ,
that much is for sure.
> Where SOM goes wrong is not in
> saying "there are subjects and there are objects" but in not realizing
> that they are mutually dependent while being mutually opposite
> (polarity), that they are the "two forces of one power" as manifested
> in human minds at this time.
I agree ...with a reservation. There have been no lack of mystics who
saw this mutual dependency, but their has been regarded a religious
solution and as such outside reason. Pirsig made it into a viable
theory so grand that he called it a metaphysics (as such in the
borderland). The value leap - in spite of his efforts to prove the
Quality=Reality postulate - is a leap.
> Pirsig is also wrong in trying to simply relegate the difference
> between subject and object to different static levels.
I have never liked this way of integrating the SOM ... why the
intellectual level itself as the S/O soon emerged as the best
candidate.
> While
> experience does divide into subject and object, it is also the case
> that thinking (and knowing) reunite them to create a unity that is
> distinguishable from the original Quality. That is, the S/O divide
> creates unity-in-individuality. Or rather, it will, once we learn to
> transcend the S/O divide without eliminating it.
YES! That is "thinking's" role. As is intelligence's, inspiration's,
intuition's and aesthetics' ...but Quality is the mother of them all.
Me prev:
> > P. of ZMM arrived at the insight that Quality was the creator of the
> > S/O (subjects and objects as it says there). His insight started on
> > Barfield- like ideas I don't deny that, but B. did not suggest a new
> > metaphysics. If you use Barfield as underpinning the MOQ's premises,
> > fine, but I have the impression that you see him saying something
> > deeper.
> As I said (I think to Paul), Coleridge provides the metaphysics that
> Barfield adopts and in some ways expands.
> I also think that Coleridge's metaphysics is better than Pirsig's, for
> precisely the things that are bothering you. Coleridge emphasizes the
> distinction between thinking and thoughts, for example. He would not
> have equated "static intellectual patterns of value" with "mind", or
> "thinking". Basically, Coleridge has a full philosophy of mind and
> nature (and which turn out to be the same) which Pirsig lacks, though
> the basics of it are there in the DQ/SQ split.
The way I interpret ZMM and of most of LILA I find all this fulfilled, but
we may return to that, these Barfield-Coleridge-Pirsig comparisons
have been very enlightening.
>My assumption is that,
> in writing Lila, Pirsig did not see the need to get to it, and in a
> way he was right. However, if one does want to get to it, the tools
> and terminology aren't there -- hence the debates here on the nature
> of the intellectual level, your distress at the annotating Pirsig,
> etc. The tools and terminology can be found in Coleridge.
Agree!
Over to Peirce.
Me prev:
> > In the book it is not said how Peirce arrived at his SIGN insight,
> > or if he saw it in contrast to any SOM - maybe you know - but the
> > likeness between Sign and Quality is striking.
> Yes, his theory is triadic, and his discussion of Thirdness (of which
> the sign is his primary example) is anti-SOM. SOM assumes basic
> reality as composed of Seconds (e.g., object seen by subject), but he
> argues that the thirdness of the sign is irreducible to any
> combination of seconds, and since signs clearly exist as thirds, SOM
> must be false.
Me prev:
> > If the above "development" of Peirce is made it fits perfectly with
> > all levels intact. And it helps immensely in understanding the 4th
> > level. What do you say?.
> Well, in the past I have tried to put forward the view that
> "everything is language", and that was based in part on Peirce.
This has passed me by. A language metaphysics is (as all other
suggestions of "groundstuffs") possible but Quality is best. My
mantra. ;-)
> I see
> the levels as being distinct because of the way we cannot discern all
> three levels, in fact, we only see two in the biological level
> (lacking the interpretant), and one in the inorganic (Object only).
> However, it does not distinguish between the social and intellectual
> levels, and for that -- assuming one wants to go this route, and DMB
> raises valid objections -- I see the difference being DQ inside and
> not outside.
My Peirce/Pirsig application ran like this:(just one level example).
Biological quality is that of "reading inorganic signs" as sense
experiences; that certain wave-lengths of the electromagnetic
spectrum signify "color", that certain molecular configurations signify
"taste" or "smell", and that certain air pressure frequencies signify
"sound". I will bring the whole thing as soon as I can reconstruct it.
Can this be harmonized with your Peirce application?
IMO.
Bo
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 Aug 18 2003 - 09:02:37 BST