From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 18:24:55 BST
Hey
it might be nice to have a pat on the back, even from
a complete stranger.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: MD Dealing with S/O pt 2
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Sep 05 2003 - 18:34:05 BST