From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 09:05:44 BST
Scott
On 4 Sep. you wrote (to Paul):
> I won't be responding in detail. You seem to be thinking that what I
> am doing is in effect to partially restore SOM, when all I want to do
> is keep the philosophical meaning of subject and object around in our
> discussion, so that we can consider them in an anti-SOM way in a
> deeper way than Pirsig does. It appears that the problem is that I
> need to explain better the role of the logic of contradictory
> identity in my approach to the MOQ. Perhaps a little intellectual
> biography might help.
Nor will I do any dissection of your mighty post, but the reference to
computer's "consciousness" was interesting because I have touched
on the AI issue many times. Hope we may return to it when we arrive
at agreement about the intellectual level ....:-()
> But with the demotion of the S/O divide to a static pattern of
> intellectual quality one loses the ability to integrate Pirsig with
> Barfield. The same goes with what Bo calls the annotating Pirsig's
> definitions of the intellectual level.
I hope you are saying. "Degrading the S/O to ONE intellectual pattern
instead of making it THE intellectual level" ...but am not sure. I waited
for to a part 2 that possibly would make this clear, but ...well I liked it
and wish people would do such confessional pieces from time to time.
I naturally applaud your defense for keeping the S/O as a value, but
WHERE? It seems to grow beyond all bounds for you, not only
occupying intellect, but spreading into society and biology ...yes, in
an earlier post you even suggested it as having a Dynamic/Static
aspect thus becoming Quality itself.
That the S/O has its root in society I agree with (look to DMB's on
language as its cradle) but the biological part I reject and also the
dynamic/static one (most strongly). That was my complaint, looking at
the concluding paragraph however ....
> All of this is lost if we just try to not think in terms of
> philosophical subjects and objects. Indeed, I see that attempt as
> falling into the pre/trans fallacy. We need to work through and
> transform the S/O form, not reject it. The major act in "working
> through" it is to see that S/O is self-contradictory, that I, as
> subject, have no permanent self-existence. But though it is
> self-contradictory, it is real. Hence pictures 9 and 10 in the Ox
> sequence. Emptiness is not other than form, form is not other than
> emptiness. The S/O form is completely real and completely empty.
I interpret it as how SOM(etaphysics) is transformed to the VALUE of
the S/O divide and everything is perfect here also the Buddhism part.
My own more secular version is that the S/O (as intellect) is as real
and as "false" as the rest of the static value levels. By false I mean
that no-one will ever detect any chaos/substance division, nor will the
matter-life separation point be found. The same goes for the bio-socio
partition, and - finally - we will always find "society" in intellect. I.e.: the
'S' is not perfectly separated from the 'O'.
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 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 09:11:56 BST