From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Jan 25 2004 - 16:32:41 GMT
Mati, Paul & Group.
23 Jan. Paul commented Mati's of the 22th:
> Mati said:
> In my mind I get where Bo is coming from and understand and see how
> SOLAQI works.
Mati understands the SOL-interpretation perfectly and it's
unnecessary to say "yes" to his statements, I'll just comment
Paul's comments..
> Paul:
> I understand it too, but I disagree with it because it is incompatible
> with the rest of the MOQ.
No small feat ...after all those posts.
> Mati said:
> This statement is based on a sensibility that does not require faith
> but rather the capacity to see SOM and how it works.
> Paul:
> I'm not sure what faith has to do with it, but if by SOM you mean the
> belief that reality is reducible to either matter or to mind or to
> some combination of the two, then I think I have the capacity to see
> SOM and how it works.
S/O as a metaphysics does NOT work, all the "evidence" that
Pirsig presents from physics science, from philosophy, from
experience (personal) show that, but as a *S T A T I C* level of
the MOQ it is he highest GOOD
> Mati said:
> SOM is the "new mythos" that is engrained in this "body of knowledge
> that unites our minds". The problem is S/O Metaphysics, not the S/O
> divide.
> Paul:
> Agreed. The MOQ retains and resolves the S/O divide as the distinction
> between inorganic-biological patterns and social-intellectual
> patterns.
This way of integrating the S/O works up to the point of objects
and subjects, but in subjetivity/objectivity cominations it fails.
> "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between
> intellect and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by
> embedding all of them in a larger system of understanding.
Yes, it is supposed to do this but the said way of tucking SOM in
under itself does not work very well, while the SOL-intellect does.
> Objects are
> inorganic and biological values; subjects are social and intellectual
> values. They are not two mysterious universes that go floating around
> in some subject-object dream that allows them no real contact with one
> another.
Are biological value OBJECTS? And social value SUBJECTS?
Maybe one may say objective and subjective, but then MOQ's
static hierarchy itself is S/O-divided. But of course this is the
resistance against the SOL - you can't drop the SOMMMMM!
They have a matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship." [Lila
> p.344]
Right the subject/object divide came to be WITH the intellectual
evolutionary stage!
> Mati said:
> The reality is that Mankind through SOM has been reaping the benefits
> of the S/O divide while suffering the consequences of "M". Zen
> Buddhism seemed to see this and side stepped this notion of SOM all
> together. In any case when man was able to use the SOM mirror he was
> able to see himself as he had never seen himself before. It was this
> new capacity that creates the new "intellect" level.
This is terribly good Mati.
> Paul:
> Or it was the new capacity of intellect, the capacity for abstract
> thought, which enabled man to see himself as never before. I argue
> that it was not that SOM enabled intellect but that it was intellect
> that enabled SOM.
"New capacity for abstract thought" and "..see himself as never
before". Right but that is to postulate a subject different from the
objective ..what he thinks about. It need not be objective in the
"stone and table" sense (people of old knew the difference
between self and other, animals too for that matter) At first it was
the search for "immortal principles" for "what was imperishable
...etc." but the S/O developed and as SOM. But there was no
"intellect" that developed into this ...lest we end up in this
impossible "thinking" mire. it's is the intellectual value level itself.
> Mati said:
> But that "M" in the SOM mirror creates a distortion that we have
> naturally accounted as real life. It was that "M" that Pirsig wrestled
> with and MOQ liberates us.
> Paul:
> Agreed. The intellectual structure of the MOQ incorporates the reality
> of value which does not fit into the category of subject or object. In
> the MOQ subject and object fit into the category of value.
"MOQ's intellectual structure"!? The whole MOQ incorporates the
reality of value. It IS a value structure. This nonsense about
intellect as ideas about the world where everything has its origin
in a somish to the core and plays straight into the Matt Rorty
hands.
> Paul previously wrote:
> The fallacy is that it does not necessarily follow that, because the
> first intellectual pattern was SOM, every intellectual pattern is SOM.
> Mati said:
> I would modify the SOM to S/O divide and then for a brief moment
> consider this. The "true intellectual value" of knowledge can be a
> reflection and be seen in the S/O mirror. Every last bit of it.
> Paul:
> I'm sorry Mati but you lost me here.
I understand Mati perfectly...AFTER the intellect is viewed in the
SOL-light (sunlight) all intellectual patterns carries the hallmark of
the original S/O ...not in the sense of "containing" subjects and
objects like Squonk harps on ... but being a search for objective
knowledge ...an unknown endeavour for the social era.
Thanks Mati. You brought a couple of Pirsig quotations but those
require a separate post.
Bo
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 Jan 25 2004 - 16:33:23 GMT