Re: MD DQ=SQ tension

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 18:26:22 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)"

    Scott

    I don't get this. I am happy to talk about objects as static patterns
    identified in the flow of my perceptions. Such identification requires
    some sort of theory about the object, e.g. these patterns make up
    an object I suggest calling a cat rather than a dog. This requires memory
    to re-cognise these patterns. There's a lot of mind stuff going on when
    we re-cognise objects. When we talk about social customs, or intellectual
    patterns, the internal aspect is perhaps playing a stronger part so perhaps
    we would say subjective rather than an objective aspect of reality. SOM
    problems start if we run off towards materialism or idealism and lose sight
    of reality as a whole. There's no doubt that my mind spends most of its
    time going round in static patterns, most of which I've picked up from
    other people. The odd moment of creativity does occur, whether I say
    I am creative, or creativity occurs through me -I don't care greatly,
    perhaps
    I prefer the more modest of the two. There's no doubt the static patterns
    cut my unity to shreads, that this splitting allows increased
    self-reflexivity.
    A mysterious activity, certainly. I think you have to see Being (static) and
    Becoming (dynamic) as equi-primordial hence Be(com)ing as Cupitt
    suggests. Or what Heidegger calls a 'clearing' where earth, sky, man and
    gods appear. A weakness in Pirsig? Well I certainly think there is a lot
    of thinking to be done about how DQ and SQ relate to each other. I have sort
    of thought
    that DQ is somehow sacrificed in SQ at the same time as it is demonstrated.
    A repeating pattern! It repeats, it does not change, this is a sacrifice of
    DQ.
    A sort of bondage. But is not this bondage the very essence of their being a
    finite-
    actual world rather than infinite non-commitment. Infinity would never
    bother to come back
    and do the same thing over again, e.g. a repeating pattern. To repeat
    something is perhaps
    to say that it has value, it is worth doing again. Think Of Nietzsche's
    question of would
    you live your life over again?

    Why the distinction between the subject and its body? -well I take subject
    as agency
    as DQ in action, the body seems separate because DQ has withdrawn to the
    extent that the
    body endures, i.e. static repeating patterns, hence the alienation, if it
    repeats it does not need
    to chose, it does not call for agency. Duration implies SQ. DQ is as
    potentially destructive and
    dangerous as it is creative, it can wipe away SQ.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 4:09 PM
    Subject: Re: MD DQ=SQ tension

    > 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
    >
    >

    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 - 18:24:25 BST