From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 01:03:31 BST
Hello everyone
>From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 1
>Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:39:20 -0600
>
>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):
Hi Scott
First of all, I'm quite mortified to see this mistake but thank you for
pointing it out. It will be corrected in a future edition. I cannot believe
I failed to catch it. In my defense, the mistake doesn't occur in earlier
incarnations of LC so it must have crept in during the printing process. I
tell you, there are times when I could just scream.
>
>"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.
Not sure I follow you here. How is it that when "you" think of a rose, the
rose becomes an object? Isn't the concept "you" a subjective state of mind?
Philosophically?
>
>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?
Again, I'm not seeing the problem here so I don't have an answer. But many
thanks for pointing out the mistake.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
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 19 2003 - 01:17:11 BST