From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 15:37:25 BST
Hi Scott, Sam, Bo, All:
Scott
> What I think it undermines is not SOM as being superceded by the MOQ,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 but the S/O divide as being superceded.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.
Are you saying the S/O divide is not a "high quality" intellectual
static pattern, or simply not an intellectual static pattern? If the
latter, would you say the S/O divide is a social level static pattern?
After all, it is essential to the structure of language which most
agree belongs in the social level.
Scott
> 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.
I think you're on to something.
Scott
>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 have superceded it.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.
If the S/O divide is a social pattern as suggested above, then there's
no need to be concerned about it because all patterns at the
intellectual level, including SOM and MOQ, can use it without causing a
conflict between levels. The S/O divide is simply subordinate to all
intellectual systems.
Scott
> 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.
How "ingrained" something is has no effect on its being a static
pattern. The laws of physics are pretty well ingrained yet still static
patterns of the inorganic level. But, the S/O divide, if we agree it is
a static social pattern, can be said to be seen as "a case of the DQ/sq
divide, or perhaps less abstractly, a case (pattern) in the MOQ moral
hierarchy.
Scott
> 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.
Or momentarily overcome in DQ experience prior to any divide. Same
thing in different words.
Sam
> > 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).
The S/O divide, if it has a home at the social level as suggested,
would apply without conflict or contradiction to all intellectual
systems including medieval Christian theology. No intellectual system
is subordinate to S/O since those systems, by definition, belong at the
higher intellectual level. Thus, an intellectual system that emphasizes
participation, or values, or objects or numbers could all use (indeed
must use to be understood) the S/O divide.
I think Scott has hit on the Rosetta stone of solving a problem I've
struggled with for years in regards to the MOQ by distinguishing
between SOM and the S/O divide. No longer need I be confused by the
fact that the MOQ uses the S/O divide to make its case for a new DQ/sq
divide.
Perhaps that new DQ/sq divide is what Bo means by the beginning of a
"rebel intellectual pattern" that will have to create it's own language
that will then eventually be assimilated into a static social pattern.
Much thinking out loud here. I look forward to being corrected.
Platt
The only valuable thing in art: the thing you cannot explain." --
Georges Braque
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 - 15:37:31 BST