From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 31 2004 - 15:22:10 GMT
Bo:Pirsig's master-stroke was that of saying that the S/O is a
subdivision inside his own DQ/SQ, and I am aghast to see that so
many are willing to equal the intellectual level with the S of SOM
> and thereby undo it.
DM: How do you think we should contextualise the 'subject' within
the MOQ? I think the subject is a way of trying to pick up SQ and DQ
aspects of experience and trying to understand them as making up what is
essential abiut human being. In a way this the covers up the significance of
DQ and the fact that DQ extends beyond the human, and also alienates
what is human fromm its more SQ/material aspects. Make any sense?
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:18 AM
Subject: RE: MD SOLAQI confirmed?
> Hi David M. Buchanan.
>
> 25 Jan. you wrote:
>
> > Matt said:
> > Plants and animals are both biological, but most people wouldn't claim
> > that just because plants/animals evolved first doesn't mean that all
> > animals/plants are plants/animals.
>
> > dmb says:
> > I've been looking for a good place to jump in ever since Bo started
> > "courting" me and I guess this is as good a spot as any. The variety
> > of life forms that exist on the biological level is immense. The
> > number of cultures, languages and social structures is also pretty
> > large.
>
> About the multitude of biological and social patterns I agree
> ...not to speak of the inorganic.
>
> > I fail to understand how we can conclude that the intellectual
> > level is identical to a single world view or metaphysical system.
>
> Remember your own thesis about the mythological era (from the
> Campbell view) as compatible with the social level (before
> intellect) in the MOQ? From this it's clear that the reality that
> followed (the myths) must be identical to the intellectual level,
> and as this is described as SOM in ZMM!!!. About it as a "single
> world view" see later.
>
> > In
> > fact, the assertion that SOM=intellect defies my own experience as a
> > thinking creature. Sure, we're talking about scientific materialism,
> > its conventional wisdom in the educated West at this point in history,
> > but I think the ancients only planted the seeds for this flower.
>
> SOM (as it first appears with the Greeks) compares to scientific
> materialism as an amoeba to a mammal organism, one can't see
> any clear connection other than both being organism.
>
> > And
> > yes, even at the birth of intellect there was a certain way of
> > detacted analyisis, but I think its a mistake to equate abstract
> > inquiry itself as a nesessary feature of SOM.
>
> The "detached" attitude has split and divided and sprouted the
> weirdest offsprings up through the millennia. Many are/were
> subjective (idealist) and other objective (materialist), yet whether
> S or O they carried the other as a shadow. Every "solution"
> reinforced the dichotomy. And the numbers of S/O "patterns" are
> as great as that of social ones.
>
> > The ability to
> > manipulate abstract symbols need not lead to only a single conclusion.
> > The same skills are used in the East and in the West by an increasing
> > number of non-SOM thinkers like Pirsig.
>
> If so, every result of "symbol-manipulation" is an intellectual
> pattern, not only a scientific theory but a religion, a myths of old
> ...anything, and the MOQ has lost all meaning.
>
> > On top of non-SOM intellectual
> > culture and non-SOM thinkers, there is my own experience. I've
> > changed my worldview several times in the last 42 years and am
> > convinced by that alone.
>
> About you personal experience ..? but non-SOM thinkers? Who
> are they? Those who protest the mind/matter dichotomy aren't,
> they merely say that there is no such divide; Reality is really
> mind, or mind is really a matter fallout .....etc. but does that help?
> Pirsig's master-stroke was that of saying that the S/O is a
> subdivision inside his own DQ/SQ, and I am aghast to see that so
> many are willing to equal the intellectual level with the S of SOM
> and thereby undo it.
>
> > The intellect is versatile enough to hold any
> > number of thought systems, alternative worldviews and constantly does
> > so as it evolves. And she's just a baby. You ain't seen nothin yet.
>
> As I see it the S/O value must be retained ..and that is only done
> by relegating it the role of of the intellectual level. Just a (silly)
> example: If for instance Islam won the Western world it would (in
> your terms) mean that "the versatile intellect evolved to a new
> world-view" ...wouldn't it? An intellect that can contain every
> possibly outlook would make a retreat to the social level look like
> an intellectual expansion ...no?
>
> > Matt said:
> > I think you can still claim that the spirit of what Pirsig wrote was
> > leading to the equation of SOM and intellect though Pirsig never
> > enunciated it.
>
> > Paul replied:
> > He has not only never enunciated it, he has denied it.
>
> > dmb adds:
> > Right. Pirsig has not only denied that but also asserted that the
> > intellectual level is larger than SOM. "There are many sets of
> > intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have
> > more quality than others . . ."
>
> I know that Pirsig has denied it. My admiration for Pirsig is great,
> but he is human and may not have foreseen every aspect of his
> idea. The MOQ has been subject to tens of thousands of posts
> and seen from every possible angle. We "elders" may know more
> about it than the master himself.
>
> > Matt said:
> > Barring even that, Bo can still define SOM as intellect and see how
> > far he gets in developing, defending, and using his view. Does it
> > clear up holes in Pirsig? Does it clear up other philosophical
> > anamolies? If Bo did this (which is what I think he should do), then
> > it wouldn't matter if it was in Pirsig at all.
>
> > dmb says:
> > Well, I think SOLAQI creates holes and the need for a fifth level and
> > such, but more than that I'd like to take issue with the notion that
> > its ok to insert our own alternate definitions of the MOQ's key terms.
>
> We have (had) those who denounce he MOQ completely, who
> bring in other philosophers as saying things better, and all kinds
> of outlandish definition of the levels: Sub-inorganic levels, biology
> as societies, societies as biology ...etc. etc. while I, who subscribe
> to every single major tenet and only have spotted this single
> "bug" .....
>
> > To be frank, unless great care is taken to distinguish between our own
> > ideas and Pirsig's ideas, I think such a practice is so confusing that
> > its downright inconsiderate. As I understand it, Pirsig has some
> > interesting ideas, he's fairly good at expressing and explaining those
> > ideas and his book is proof of that. In that book, he tells us where
> > he got his ideas and he tells us about the methods of organizing these
> > ideas. He SHOWS US HIS MIND. He wants us to understand what he's
> > saying. Its just that kind of book.
>
> OK sobering observations.
>
> > Of course its ok for people to have other ideas and compare them, but
> > let's not pretend that there is no difference between an incorrect
> > reading and an alternative idea. I mean, I think Bo would very much
> > like the MOQ to be cast in his image and would love to persuade the
> > author himself to convert.
>
> He need not "convert", the SOL is the ORIGINAL MOQ as I met
> it in ZMM.
>
> > I love Bo, but let's not pretend SOLAQI is
> > anything other than an interpretation of Pirsig.
>
> It is the rejection of SOM which is the heart of the MOQ, the
> static levels and their definitions aren't all that important, as long
> as they are kept STATIC. The danger is the dynamic/chaotic
> intellecters, but you are right, the SOL is an interpretation.
> Besides, I don't think Pirsig objects to us exploring his ideas -
> even in a critical sense - as long as it is from its own premises.
> 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
>
>
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 : Sat Jan 31 2004 - 17:44:39 GMT