From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 22:40:36 BST
David M said:
Scott is right again!
Paul:
Oh, right. There you go then!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: MD Dealing with S/O pt 2
> Continued...
>
> Scott:
> Now, in other reading, which makes sense to me, I find that while it
is
> acknowledged that the S/O divide is of high value -- giving us
science,
> notably -- it also brings suffering. Redefining the S/O divide as a
> static
> intellectual pattern is a (failing) attempt to treat the symptom, but
> does
> not cure the disease.
>
> Paul:
> I'm not sure if that's all the MOQ has to say about curing the
> "disease", it's all in the relationship between Dynamic Quality and
> static quality...
>
> "The difference between a good mechanic and a bad one, like the
> difference between a good mathematician and a bad one, is precisely
this
> ability to select the good facts from the bad ones on the basis of
> quality. He has to care! This is an ability about which formal
> traditional scientific method has nothing to say. It's long past time
to
> take a closer look at this qualitative preselection of facts which has
> seemed so scrupulously ignored by those who make so much of these
facts
> after they are "observed." I think that it will be found that a formal
> acknowledgment of the role of Quality in the scientific process
doesn't
> destroy the empirical vision at all. It expands it, strengthens it and
> brings it far closer to actual scientific practice.
>
> I think the basic fault that underlies the problem of stuckness is
> traditional rationality's insistence upon "objectivity," a doctrine
that
> there is a divided reality of subject and object. For true science to
> take place these must be rigidly separate from each other. "You are
the
> mechanic. There is the motorcycle. You are forever apart from one
> another. You do this to it. You do that to it. These will be the
> results."
>
> This eternally dualistic subject-object way of approaching the
> motorcycle sounds right to us because we're used to it. But it's not
> right. It's always been an artificial interpretation superimposed on
> reality. It's never been reality itself. When this duality is
completely
> accepted a certain nondivided relationship between the mechanic and
> motorcycle, a craftsmanlike feeling for the work, is destroyed. When
> traditional rationality divides the world into subjects and objects it
> shuts out Quality, and when you're really stuck it's Quality, not any
> subjects or objects, that tells you where you ought to go.
>
> By returning our attention to Quality it is hoped that we can get
> technological work out of the noncaring subject-object dualism and
back
> into craftsmanlike self-involved reality again, which will reveal to
us
> the facts we need when we are stuck." [ZMM Ch.24]
>
> The closer you get to the Dynamic Quality, the less divided subject
and
> object are, the more experience will open up with inspiration,
> creativity and excellence. That's it really. We miss it because we are
> always doing things to achieve a specific result so that our mind is
> focussed on what we already expect. I think this is what Zen Buddhism
> aims to break through, koans with no solutions, "just sitting",
because
> what they want to transmit is not at the target but at the very centre
> of the purposeless tension of the Zen archer.
>
> Scott:
> For that we need to examine the S/O divide more
> deeply. The first thing to notice is that I, a self, a subject, do not
> feel
> static. The S/O form of experience is dynamic, so it doesn't make much
> sense
> to call the S/O divide a static anything.
>
> Paul:
> Are you really saying that the S/O form of experience is dynamic in
the
> Pirsigian sense of undifferentiated, undefined and unknowable?
>
> Scott:
> (Strictly speaking, Pirsig calls
> SOM a static pattern of intellectual quality, but since he doesn't
> explicitly distinguish SOM from S/O thinking, and because of his
> definition
> of 'subjective' and 'objective', one concludes, like Squonk, that
"there
> are
> no subjects and objects in the MOQ".)
>
> Paul:
> As explained above, "subjects" and "objects" are symbols which
aggregate
> two different types of experience into general terms. Subject-object
> metaphysics would be a pattern which takes the symbols as a starting
> point to construct a conceptual model of reality. The MOQ does not
take
> those symbols as a starting point to construct a model of reality, it
> takes value as a starting point and categorises the same experience
but
> in a different way [and, crucially, refers to a previously ignored
> pre-intellectual element of experience]. As such, the experience
> symbolically aggregated into subjects and objects by SOM is
symbolically
> aggregated into four static levels by Pirsig. Therefore you can choose
> to refer to patterns of value as subjects and objects or subjective
and
> objective but it is not necessary.
>
> Scott:
> Furthermore, in analyzing subjects and objects, one finds something
> curious...
>
> b) Whenever we attempt to analyze mental operations, we run into what
I
> call
> (following Nishida) the logic of contradictory identity. For example
> (one
> I've used before), we are aware of time as a succession of events, and
> of
> time as duration. These two awarenesses are mutually contradictory,
but
> also
> mutually constituting: awareness of succession requires the awareness
of
>
> duration, and vice versa. This logic also applies to the DQ/SQ split,
> though
> Pirsig does not go into this.
>
> Paul:
> Please explain further. I don't quite see this.
>
> Scott:
> So rather than multiply entities, I propose
> that the S/O divide be seen as a case of the DQ/SQ split.
>
> Paul:
> Does that not make the MOQ another subject-object based metaphysics?
>
> Scott:
> Awareness creates
> subject and object, thinking creates thinker and thought, and so on.
> Normal
> mental activity is DQ/SQ tension, which we know as subject/object
> tension.
> In applying the logic of contradictory identity to subjects and
objects
> we
> accomplish two things: we deconstruct the self (and objects) without
> destroying it (and them), and we gain insight into the DQ/SQ split.
>
> Paul:
> I don't see what this achieves that the MOQ doesn't. But I don't
really
> understand the proposal yet.
>
> In summary, the main problem you have with the MOQ is that its claims
> about the pre-intellectual empirical reality of value don't agree with
> your experience, which you feel is entirely that of a subject
> experiencing objects, is that fair?
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 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
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 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 22:42:43 BST