From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jan 30 2004 - 07:43:47 GMT
Steve and Group
27 Jan. you wrote:
> Bo said about SOLAQI:
> > I know that Pirsig doesn't endorse it, but it's a great mystery how
> > he could avoid drawing this SOL conclusions and thereby harmonize
> > ZMM and LILA. ...
> > He could have seen the obvious: That the mythos (that the SOM
> > replaced) aligns perfectly with the Social Level of the MOQ, its
> > value (Aretê) answers every description of social value (shining
> > Hector ..etc.). And then let SOM become MOQ's intellect and the MOQ
> > which replaces SOM (transcends intellect) become a "rebel"
> > intellectual pattern (no great issue that). And in this light the
> > Quality Event is DQ becoming S/O-patterned by intellect.
> Pirsig said in Lila, "There already is a metaphysics of quality. A
> subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first
> division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is into
> subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human
> experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes."
I have trouble seeing the relevance of this regarding the above
ZMM-LILA harmonisation, and about SOM as a quality
metaphysics?! There was no Quality in the - um - quality sense
until the MOQ, only value in the subjective sense. Inside the
MOQ however there is the intellectual level that divides
experience the S/O way and the social level that "divides" it the
social way.
> > Everything fits like the proverbial hand and glove and makes his
> > QUALITY one single unbroken line from the ZMM onwards.
> Pirsig continues:
> "The trouble is, it doesn't [fit]. What he had seen is that there is
> a metaphysical box that sits above these two boxes, Quality itself.
> And once he'd seen this he also saw a huge number of ways in which
> Quality can be divided. Subjects and objects are just one of the
> ways."
Firstly, SOM does not just "divide" experience into subjects
(minds) and objects (matter) there are an unending number of
more subtle subject-ive and object-ive configurations. But - right -
S/O is only ONE way of "dividing", as above said it begins with
the inorganic way of perceiving quality, followed by the biological
...and so on.
> It appears that Pirsig did see the obvious: that SOM is a metaphysics
> of quality. Here again we see the root expansion of rationality idea
> that Paul raised. Intellect has the role of dividing Quality, which
> can be done in many ways--not just S/O. There is no reason to limit
> intellect to the S/O divide. When we try to, we find that everything
> does not "fit into one of these two boxes."
Again, I don't see the relevance of the "SOM as a quality
metaphysics". About "root expansions of rationality" (see! Pirsig,
Paul and all see "rationality" as intellect!) An intellect able to
accomodate all possibly ideas makes the MOQ lose all meaning.
IMO
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 : Fri Jan 30 2004 - 07:45:43 GMT