From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 13:44:06 BST
Squonk,
Here's the situation.
You say: "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ. Subjects and objects
are not primary".
I reply that, while I agree that subjects and objects are not primary, I
nevertheless think that the way Pirsig deals with subjects and objects is
inadequate, for certain reasons.
Your reply to this is "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ". You do
not address my reasons.
Now I think it is questionable whether it is correct to say that there are no
subjects and objects "in the MOQ". How does one determine what is and is not
"in the MOQ"? After all, doesn't Pirsig say that the MOQ includes SOM? Doesn't
he specifically say that he will use the words "subjective" and "objective"
in a particular way? Doesn't he assign them to a particular place in his
system? So saying "There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ" is hardly as
obviously true as saying "the earth is spherical".
But that is not my gripe, since whether it is true or not is not germane. My
gripe It is that I am saying I disagree with Pirsig on how he is using the
words "subject" and "object", and give reasons for doing so. Your response is
"There are no subjects and objects in the MOQ".
For the sake of argument, let's say it is a true statement. But so what? I am
saying that I disagree with Pirsig on this point. You do not reply to my
reasons for disagreeing, you just reply "There are no subjects and objects in the
MOQ".
So in your example, if I give a reason for saying that the earth is flat, is
your response "The earth is spherical" or do you try to correct my reasoning?
I would hope the latter. To just repeat "The earth is spherical" is not a
responsive response.
Perhaps "slogan" isn't the right word. What it was was irrelevant in the
context. But when it gets repeated, many times, over the objection that it is
irrelevant, well, it sounds to me like a slogan, not a thoughtful response.
- Scott
Dear Scott,
In Lila, the one - Quality, is divided into DQ and SQ. That is a
discrimination which allows Quality a central position. This requires a whole new approach
to experience, an approach that one has to commit oneself to in order to see
just how good it is. In my view, there are three regular contributors to this
forum, with whom i can happily chat, without ever mentioning subjects or
objects.
A few years ago, i was in my element, so to speak, because for a while i was
in the company of more people than contribute to this forum, with whom i could
relate to in such a liberating and satisfying manner that i felt i was really
free. We never mentioned subjects and objects.
It was in the doing, not the arguing about, that got work done.
Regarding your problems with the way Pirsig deals with subjects and objects.
My response is to still think i am with my friends. Which is very sad for me!
It is difficult for me to reason over this because i dropped it all many
years ago Scott, but i will try. May i do it the following way:
1. Annotated Pirsig. Pirsig has not been annotated. What has happened is that
a group of people have not accepted the MoQ, for varying reasons. Questions
were asked from non-MoQ perspectives, and Pirsig was invited to contribute
responses. The responses Pirsig made were to a non-MoQ audience, and therefore
required a sympathetic treatment in that regard. That people are still
dissatisfied with the MoQ is, in my view, largely a matter of them having to cope with
the enormous task of deconstructing their cultural inheritance - it is a
massive, and fearful move, but worth the effort. A good way of easing the shock is
to read anthropology, were culture shock is a norm!
2. The MoQ forum. The MoQ forum would, in my view, serve those in a position
such as yourself better, if it were dominated by people who talked all the
time in the manner i remember from my days with friends who did the same. As it
is, the forum appears to be dominated by people who have no interest in the
MoQ, which is a bit odd considering the name of the forum!
3. Subjects and objects. It is possible to never mention them, and this is
not to ignore them, which may be a concern of yours?
Our stellar system has a number of 'objects' in it, but these objects from
the view of another stellar system are one object, with a binding gravitational
field and electromagnetic structure. If one retreats far enough, will the
universe become one object, and you one subject looking on?
Now replace stellar objects with life. How far can you remove yourself from
life before you become enviable?
Now replace stellar objects with society. How far can you remove yourself
from society before you become nonviable?
Now replace stellar objects with intellect. How far can you remove yourself
from intellect before becoming nonviable?
If you discriminate upon your definitions, as you must do, then you can find
yourself in a bubble with the requirements for your own existence and nothing
else. But that is an absurd rational account with little value. That's kind of
the Skutvik doctrine.
Now replace stellar objects with DQ-SQ tension. Suddenly, the discrimination
of experience, as one must do, binds everything together in such a way as make
one realise that the former discrimination merely rational. There are other
ways of discriminating experience, and the MoQ is not a bad one, if you
exercise the appropriate discrimination, as you must do, one way or another.
All the best,
squonk
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 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 13:44:51 BST