From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 16:52:48 BST
Hi Matt.
30 August you wrote (in reply to DMB who had ended a message
thus):
DMB:
> Its like were all here to discuss Pirsig's work and discuss in
> Pirsig's terms, but you insist on using some other currency with ever
> mentioning the exchange rate.
Matt:
> From October 14, 2002, in a post entitled "Pirsig, the MoQ, and SOM":
> > "In the past, I've put forth a thesis that Pirsig can, and should at
> > times, be seen as a Kantian philosopher. He can be seen following many
> > of the same metaphysical moves that Kant made. Bo denied this because
> > Kant should be seen as the primary member of the so-called
> > Subject-Object Metaphysical club. As Bo saw, by making this claim, I'm
> > making a not-so-tiny indictment against Pirsig's view of the MoQ as
> > repudiating SOM.
> > "So, this is my reading of the MoQ presented by Pirsig: Pirsig
> > believes he's repudiating subject-object metaphysics, but I find that
> > he is still caught in it. He follows the Kantian inner-outer
> > distinction, which leads people to interpret an appearence-reality
> > distinction. Reality is still "out there." Its just now, morals are
> > "out there.""
Matt continuing:
> To be fair, at the time you had just recently come back to the MD
> after an extended hiatus. You came back in the middle of a
> conversation that I had started a few months before, and for a while
> it would appear that you didn't read them. However, and here's where
> I'm not going to be fair, considering the length that the conversation
> has stretched, you came back almost at the beginning. The post I just
> quoted from was my second, maybe third, original posting in the
> pragmatist key. And many people have slipped into the conversation
> easily enough from further on.
I have no business mixing in with your long-lasting dispute with DMB,
had it not been for the Kantian reference above that I (for a second)
saw tying up to much of what is up for scrutiny these days. Mostly
Paul and mine "level's as reality" issue. So if my half numb brain is
able to re-thread the associations:
DMB accuses you of not using the MOQ "currency", but at least you
speak of the S/O in a metaphysical sense and that IS moqish. I know
of no other system that uses it that way, surely there is a lot about
mind and matter, but always what is primary. My idea is that all Q-
levels were the "metaphysics" of their era; the mirror reality were seen
by. Please, this in an absurdly extended sense.
Now, an important tenet of the MOQ is that the child level builds on
the parent level (the intellect-out-of-society tenet seems to be a tough
nut for the "mind"-definition of intellect ...by the way :) As you may
know my pet idea is that the subject/object divide is Q-intellect
itself.and as SOM it was the said mirror, but now - with the Quality
Idea - the "M"irror is taken over by the MOQ.
However - and here is my point in this case - your pointing to Pirsig
still being caught in the SOM" is valid in the MOQ-out-of-SOM sense,
yet it's only the S/O divide that counts - not the "M". Do you follow my
reasoning Matt? The Quality level will inherit intellct's S/O in the same
way that intellect inherited the best from society ....but now in the
upper level's service. This part is so well documented in LILA that I
need not repeat it, my own axe to grind however is that it erases the
impossible mind-definition of intellect ...but enough!
Sincerely
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 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 16:54:46 BST