From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Feb 19 2004 - 19:53:52 GMT
Dearest Bo
I feel that the fog that lies between us will never lift,
but I press on. Now I did not say, I believe, that in the MOQ
the subject simply becomes part of SQ. Rather, this is what I am saying:
Quality is a whole. It exists prior to SOM as much as it exists prior
to MOQ's SQ/DQ divide -with a unifying Q in each term of course. This is my
ontological starting point. Now SOM divides EVERYTHING into
either subject or object. MOQ divides EVERYTHING (the same everything)
differently
into SQ/DQ. Now where is subject and object in SQ and DQ? I say
that SOM almost ignores DQ in its scheme but if anywhere it shows
something of itself in the subject. You can see this in German idealism,
where it talks about the world being constituted by the subject.
Now in MOQ the SQ/DQ divide is less down the middle than SOM and sort
of over to one side. There is DQ with nothing static about it, and
then the great realm of SQ (containing all the levels). Reason, the Greeks
etc, have been obsessed with
SQ and therefore ignored DQ (forgetting of Being as Heidegger calls it, or
better
translated by Becoming in fact) because DQ is beyond analysis. SQ/DQ divides
the world about as much as a tangent divides a circle. So if you place
objects in the MOQ
divide they are entirely static (once established and simply repeating ,
i.e.exempting
the emergence of organic/inorganic itself). Subjectivity is more complex,
for me there is an element of
DQ in our notion of subjectivity, a tiny element in a way, so this tiny bit
of the subject belongs
to DQ, the rest of subjectivity belongs to SQ. Pirsig then goes on to
discuss levels.
Levels are formed by SQ patterns. Inorganic object patterns, organic object
patterns,
and then it gets tricky, social patterns have a subjective element, without
human subjectvity
there would be nothing social, so these are 'sort-of' social-subject
patterns (because the notion of
subject has always had a large static element to it), then we have
intellectual-subject patterns. These are the
static levels of Pirsig. It has an objective and subjective divide in it
because subjectivity and objectivity
are notions full of static patterns, but there remains something about
subjectivity in SOM that has a
hint of DQ about it, i.e. take the linking of the notion of freedom to
subjectivity. The breakthrough that MOQ
gives us is to be able to conceptualise in DQ the DQ aspect of experience
that has been increasingly
covered up by the SOM approach as it has become rigid. The other
breakthrough is to be able
to see all the static patterns that exist within our usual/common conception
of subjectivity and giving
them the same ontological status as so-called objective patterns. So you
could also say that
social and intellectual patterns can now be seen as objective, because they
are patterns and can be
analysed and have assertions made about them just like the lower level
patterns. But also they remain
more open to dynamic change than the lower levels, i.e. society and ideas
are always changing, but so
do the lower levels, new species, and new molecules are created.
The matter/mind subject/object distinction and metaphysics are overthrown
because we can see using the MOQ that there are patterns on all the levels,
they
create the levels. And beyond the static levels is DQ in all its wonder.
(Bo you seem to talk about the MOQ (meaning I assume the DQ/SQ divide with
SQ levels) as if it
is DQ, as if it is beyond the static levels where
analysis/thinking/intellect can do what they do best.
For me the beyond, the transcendent, the capacity to create something out of
nothing is what we have
the mystical conception of DQ for. Also IMO you seem to confuse the
different meanings
of subjectivity and objectivity that come to play in Pirsig's work as Paul
described very well.).
So Bo, any clearer, can you see where we disagree or agree,
because I cannot put my finger on it.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: MD Objectivity, Truth, MOQ and Skyscrapers
> David M. and MD.
>
> On 18 Feb. you spoke:
>
> > > Bo:At times I despair a little over "Lila's Child". Listen and listen
> > > well: What Science (as intellect) studies are the regularities
> > > (patterns) of the inorganic level! .....OF THE MOQ! Why this about
> > > scientific knowledge being "subjective" when Pirsig armed with Quality
> > > KNOWLEDGE has declared the inorganic patterns (plus the other levels
andchose
> > > their patterns) to exist beyond any subject/object context. It sounds
as
> > > if Pirsig doesn't quite take his own MOQ serious, but still operates
> > > from SOM's premises.
>
> > DM: Well that is good for me. Does this mean we can dump
> > the SO divide and stick to the pattern language from now on?
>
> I am not sure if you are ironic or not, but I chose to regard it a serious
> question. When will it sink in that the moment the Subject/Object
> Metaphysics is rejected it is stripped of its "M" (handed over to the
> MOQ) and only the S/O is left and must be tucked in under MOQ's
> system. NOT - as you suggested to Paul - that it spreads across the
> DQ/SQ (that would mean re-installing it in its metaphysical grandeur)
> but somewhere in the static half. Pirsig originally says that the
inorganic
> plus biological levels are "objects" (or objective) and the social plus
> intellectual are "objects" (or subjective).
>
> This resulted it my "outburst" above as a result of Pirsig's about
> scientific knowledge (intellect's value) being "subjective". What kind of
> "subjectivity" is it that clings to intellectual patterns? Is it the old
somish
> kind or a new Quality subjectivity? I have suggested the intellectual
> level itself to be the STATIC VALUE of the S/O divide. This creates no
> subjects and objects (or subjectivity or objectivity) that must be
> disposed of, only the value remains which is totally in MOQ's "spirit".
>
> > Is the value of the SO divide merely a ladder we can now throw
> > away from our new higher location?
>
> Well, the value of the S/O divide is not thrown away, it is the HIGHEST
> static value there is, but as shown above it is stripped of its
> metaphysical "honors". Physical sciences (particle physics and
> cosmology f.ex.) has long ago dropped any notion of "objective matter"
> or "objectivity" and will go on in this vein without any ado. It is
> philosophy based on S/O METAPHYSICS that is incapable of realizing
> this ...naturally because it SOM's "raison d'etre".
>
> Yes, the MOQ is beyond intellect which is taken down several pegs
> from the realm of ideas it usually is regarded as. I'm not all sure about
> how to see its "location" or its "nature", but am working on it ;-)
>
> 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 : Thu Feb 19 2004 - 20:41:10 GMT