From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 09:11:10 BST
Paul and People
8 Oct. you wrote:
> He rejects idealism by collapsing the mutually exclusive divide into
> Quality which contains subject and object, idealism and materialism,
> in a larger context. In Lila's Child, Pirsig refers to the Hindu
> parable where Buddha invites several blind men to touch a different
> part of an elephant before asking them what an elephant is. Each blind
> man argues unto exchanging blows with the others because of the
> different experience they had, to which the Buddha replies -
I seem to spot you saying that Quality contains the S/O dualism and
that's enough.
> [Bo:]
> Thus the subjective side (ideas) is as invalid as the objective one
> and this is why I am so disappointed by the said annotation.
> [Paul:]
> The subjective side is not invalid, it is valid but incomplete.
Right, neither subject[ive] nor object[ive] can be without the other.
> [Paul:]
> Idealism, or subjectivity, has been "rejected" by being contained
> within a larger context.
PIRSIG:
> "...the Metaphysics of Quality provides a larger framework in which to
> integrate subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity and objectivity
> are not separate universes that have no connection to each other.
I agree whole-heartedly.
> They
> are instead separate stages of a single evolutionary process called
> value." [SODV]
But the point of OUR debate is that the S/O divide isn't valid, the
DQ/SQ is. Thus there are no separate idea realm that gives rise to
things. Ideas are part and parcel of the S/O aggregate ...which is
best seen as MOQ's intellect, because there is even an inconsistency
in the S/O as "...having no connection" and that of being stages. The
inorganic universe existed for billions of years with no "subjectivity".
No, the S/O emerged simultaneously as MOQ's intellect.
> [Bo:]
> The postulate of Quality coming first I fully accept, but within this
> context the first static "product" is inorganic value ...
> [Paul:]
> Within the MOQ intellectual framework, that is correct. The highest
> quality intellectual pattern says that inorganic nature comes first.
Well, at least you dropped the idea bit, but you see that we are back
to the logic bend. Within the MOQ INTELLECTUAL framework the
intellectual level is the last stage, and there one finds the MOQ (DQ
and all). There is something terribly wrong here.
This is why I want to see the intellect as the S/O divide ...and the
MOQ as something beyond ....then (with all screws in place) you can
say: "Within the MOQ framework." The MOQ can never be
understood from intellect's premises without creaating
inconsistencies.
Yours sincerely
Bo
PS
A little reflection on things. I have at times alluded to the post-X
struggle for what were to become X-tianity. This is of course
preposterous, yet with all possible reservations this IS a struggle for
the "soul" of the MOQ, and maybe you and I represent the extreme
positions most clearly. In an earlier post in this thread you spoke a
little of how these words:
> "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which
> produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has
> produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes
> first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the
> MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!"
> [Lila's Child p.202]
..... did something for your understanding (I spotted a "deliverance"
tone (nothing wrong with that :) and the vehement way that you
oppose my criticism of this particular part indicates a certain worry
that the RIGHT way will perish. The reason I say this that you - at least
- seem to understand what direction I want the MOQ to move. My
worry is the directly opposite: this quote will destroy the MOQ as I
intuitively perceived it. I feel that the annotating Pirsig somehow - for
inscrutable reason - has let down Phaedrus of ZMM who made a
clean break with SOM by rejecting BOTH horns. The reason? As
there are references to Quantum Theory I suspected a fraternization
with science (Physics) in an effort to make the MOQ house clean to
those circles. After LC my position looked bleak, but after the last
letter (I can't thank you enough for that) things have improved, and I
appreciate your will/ability to see its implications - you even hinted to a
revaluation of certain points (Phew, messages flash by, I note things
of interest, but soon it's "snowed under") So, as long as Pirsig isn't
"crucified" he may come even further in the next letter.
PPS
The Quantum implications are valid but the MOQ "solution" to those
quandaries are different than the ones that the SODV paper indicates.
IMO!!
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 Oct 10 2003 - 09:13:28 BST