From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 23:39:20 BST
DMB,
> dmb says [to Bo]:
> Any case of non-SOM intellectual static patterns refutes SOLAQI. Pirsig
> names several and that's enough to show that it doesn't work.
(Please note, in the following I will be referring to S/O, not SOM).
Pirsig's examples are non-S/O only because of the way he has defined subject
and object. My beef with Pirsig is this way of defining them. In LC #111
(with the numbering corrected):
"Object n.
1. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, expecially by vision
or touch; a material thing.
2. A focus of attention, feeling, thought, or action.
3. The purpose, aim [etc.]
4. [grammatical object]
5. Philosophy. Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
"The "objects" in the MOQ refer to Definition #1. Objects are biological
patterns and inorganic patterns, not thoughts or social patterns. The
"objects" Danny refers to seem to be in Definition #5. It seems to be that
in Definition #5 subjects can also be objects. Thus any distinction between
them is meaningless."
First, his objection at the end is silly. When I think of a rose, the rose
is the object. When I think of my thinking of the rose, the thinking of the
rose is an object. When I think about the concept "subject", the concept
"subject" is an object. All quite meaningful.
But mainly, I object because there is now no way to talk about the S/O
divide, using "O" as in definitions #2 or #5. It is as if Pirsig wants to
eliminate the separation between self and other by defining it away.
Defnitions #2 and #5 exist for a reason. Without them, we just have to
invent new words. That is,...
> But mostly I think its a solution in search of a problem.
The problem is that there is no way to talk about the intellect without
talking about an X/Y divide, traditionally called the S/O divide. But we
can't use "object" for "Y" and since subject in the #5 sense is also
verboten, what do we use instead? Well, in the MOQ one can refer to static
patterns of value, so we have at least X/SPoV. Now what goes into "X"? In
the MOQ, the only thing that is not SPoV is DQ, but that is not what is
traditionally thought of as the "subject". So how do I talk about thinking,
perceiving, feeling, understanding, willing, etc. in general terms, that is,
philosophically?
> I mean, I still don't know why
> we would need anything more than intellect to understand the MOQ.
"I understand the MOQ [or don't understand]". That's a case of the S/O
divide, in the #2 or #5 sense. Me on one side, the MOQ on the other. The MOQ
is not an object (def. #1), so this statement is impossible, according to
the MOQ.
The same applies to all his examples, like mathematics. If I think about a
statement about triangles, and want to prove it, I (subject) treat the
concepts triangle, line, etc. as objects (sense #2).
> It may
> have some unusual features, but it is still just a philosophy. (Spaeking
of
> which, If I had to come up with a pithy little definition of intellect I'd
> say its "thinking about thinking".)
How are you going to investigate it without the S/O distinction?
- Scott
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 18 2003 - 23:40:23 BST