From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 02:47:30 BST
Sam,
What I think it undermines is not SOM as being superceded by the MOQ, but
the S/O divide as being superceded. Yes, SOM did not appear until the 17th
century, in tandem with the scientific revolution. But the S/O divide had
gradually been developing since long before then. Where Pirsig goes wrong,
in my opinion, is that, while SOM is a high quality intellectual static
pattern of value, the S/O divide is not, and he does not make that
distinction. Since SOL is a given in just about every thought presented here
and everywhere, there is no way we can say we have superceded it. SOL is
just "there are things independent of me" (like tigers), and though we can
claim that Quality "precedes" the divide, that does not make the divide go
away.
This is why I say that the S/O divide should be seen as a case of the DQ/SQ
divide. It's too ingrained in us to be called a *static* pattern of value.
Instead it is how the DQ/SQ divide takes form when we think, perceive, feel,
and act, in our current stage of consciousness. Even in mathematics, where
the thoughts are not SOL-based, there is nevertheless a perceived difference
between the mathematician and the mathematics. Only in peak experiences is
the divide momentarily overcome.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
> Hi Scott,
>
> I agreed with what you said here, but I was wondering if you felt it
undermined the monolith of
> 'subject-object metaphysics' which is put up by Pirsig as the opposition
of the MoQ. I'm coming to
> think that SOM as such only really kicked in after the scientific
revolution and - as you point
> out - it doesn't really apply to those intellectual systems (often
neo-Platonic) which emphasise
> participation. (As did medieval Christian theology, in parts, of course).
>
> Cheers
> Sam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 4:09 AM
> Subject: Re: MD liberals, conservatives & suffering
>
>
> Jim,
>
> No, Barfield's 'participation' is not equivalent to 'attitude'. The word
comes from classical and
> medieval philosophy, and referred to a commonality between the human and
the world that allowed the
> former to know the latter, so the relation between them was seen in the
middle ages as one of
> microcosm and macrocosm. Barfield's thesis (based mainly on changes in
word meanings, anthropology,
> etc.) is that in earler times that commonality was experienced as a
spiritual aspect of the world, a
> stage of consciousness he calls "original participation". Gradually, as
intellect developed, this
> experienced spirituality lessened, and finally died out completely by
around 1500 AD, and so now
> instead of describing our relation to the world as microcosm/macrocosm, we
describe it as
> subject/object. However, according to Barfield, participation has not
ceased to exist. Rather, we
> have lost conscious awareness of it. "Final participation" will come about
when we regain conscious
> awareness of it, but without losing our intellect.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 Aug 31 2003 - 02:49:45 BST