From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 16:09:00 BST
David M,
>
> briefly, what do you mean by the SO divide is
> meaningless in the MOQ?
In Lila, Pirsig restricts the use of the word 'objective' to things and
events of the inorganic and biological levels, and 'subjective' to those of
the social and intellectual levels. In Note #111 of Lila's Child, he makes
this explicit: in the MOQ, the word 'object' is to be used only in the sense
"Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, expecially by vision
or touch". To me this makes the MOQ useless in coming to grips with the
mind, since it disallows talk of the intentionality of consciousness, to
talk about "thinking about X" when the X is not inorganic or biological. In
the MOQ, the mind is a set of static patterns of intellectual value. I see
this as a bogus way of eliminating the mind-body problem, similar to the way
materialists get rid of it. It just defers the problem. It ignores the
mystery that a unity can split itself, by being able to "think about".
- 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 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 16:15:16 BST