From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 19:35:35 GMT
Scott:Instead it should be seen as the conscious arena of DQ/SQ tension
within
the human being. After all, it is by means of the intellect that we analyze,
critique and *evaluate* all other static patterns, and thus create new ones.
DM: Hi Scott, I agree with your attack on idea of 'only abstract' but is the
above more than just a matter of the distinction between DQ active
intelligence
and the SQ products it creates?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: MD Rorty
> Anthony,
>
> > Ant: Barfield seems an interesting philosopher (re: the history of SOM)
so
> I'd certainly would like an expansion of your point concerning his
treatment
> of the intellect.
>
> It's hard -- or maybe I'm just too lazy -- to do it justice without
> repeating pretty much his whole book (Saving the Appearances: A Study in
> Idolatry). Here's a short bit I wrote about it a while back:
>
> [Start of bit]
> [Sam asked:]> How would you understand the fourth level?
>
> As Barfield would have, had he addressed the question. That, around 500
B.C.
> in Greece (and with parallel movements in the East), consciousness started
> to change from what he called "original participation", where subject and
> object had not split apart, where the spirit in the trees was seen
"behind"
> the tree, and where totemism made sense (the social level was everything).
> With the Greeks, what he calls alpha-thinking commenced, that is, thinking
> about things. This requires that the things become objective, and that is
> what happened, a process that didn't really become fully accomplished
until
> about 500 years ago, and which accomplishment made the scientific
revolution
> possible. So we are now in a state where the participation has gone
> underground, so to speak, namely we are not conscious of it, yet it is
still
> there, since otherwise we couldn't be aware of anything. Or rather, our
> being aware of anything is what he calls 'figuration' -- turning the
> unrepresented into the represented. The future he calls 'final
> participation', where we regain our connection with everything else, but
as
> opposed to original participation, the connection is "felt" internally,
not
> externally.
>
> [End of bit] (and see also your note 127)
>
> > Ant: It maybe not be obvious in Pirsig's work but I don't think he
> overlooks that nirvana = samsara because the bottom line, in the MOQ, is
> that all static patterns are essentially manifestations of Dynamic
Quality.
> I have mentioned this in previous posts and also briefly allude to this in
> Section 5.5. of my PhD textbook where I discuss the relationship between
> Nagarjuna and Pirsig.
>
> Yes, the static patterns manifest DQ, but my objection is that Pirsig
takes
> this in a nominalistic way, as evidenced by his considering DQ as
> "pre-intellectual", and in general seeing the intellect as covering up DQ.
> This (in my opinion) bias is seen in your statement from the PhD Text
> (section 5.7):
>
> "A theme prevalent in Nishida's 'concrete logic' (as well as the MOQ and
> much of Buddhist thought), is the recognition of the 'self' as just a
useful
> abstraction. "
>
> I think this is Pirsig's position but it is not Nishida's (though there
may
> be some difference between early and late Nishida, I'm not sure). Whenever
I
> read "just an abstraction" I shriek "Nominalism!", which I consider the
root
> of SOM in its diseased form. I ask: who is abstracting, what is the
> abstraction being abstracted from, and how can it happen without
> transcending space and time -- in short, "an abstraction" is the same
> mystery as "the self".
>
> Why I think this is not Nishida's position is that he sees the self as a
> contradictory identity, that the self is, yet is not, and the self is not,
> and yet is. (From Robert Carter's "The Nothingness Beyond God: An
> Introduction to the Philosophy of Nishida Kitaro", p. 69}:
>
> "' At the base of the world,' writes Nishida 'there are neither the many
nor
> the one; it is a world of absolute unity, of opposites, where the many and
> the one deny each other.' The present is the temporal place, or basho
where
> the self-contradictory past and future mutually interact. as well, 'this
> contradictory identity,' in any and all of its forms, 'is the very place
> where we find our self.'"
>
> The self exists in the tension between the many and the one, or to put it
in
> MOQ terms, in the tension between DQ and SQ. But Pirsig denies this,
calling
> it a static pattern of value. Because I accept the Nishidan view and not
> Pirsig's, I reject the MOQ position that the intellect is a fourth level
of
> SQ. Instead it should be seen as the conscious arena of DQ/SQ tension
within
> the human being. After all, it is by means of the intellect that we
analyze,
> critique and *evaluate* all other static patterns, and thus create new
ones.
>
> - 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 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 19:42:06 GMT