From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:39:38 GMT
Bo
see below in CAPS.
DAVID M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: MD Objectivity, Truth, MOQ and Skyscrapers
> David M and MD
> Sorry for the delay, but I have to work on things, a limitation most
> of you aren't hampered by.
>
> On 19 Feb. you spaketh thus:
>
> > I feel that the fog that lies between us will never lift,
> > but I press on.
> Was it Joe who said that mystic means "initiated", there is some
> initiation required for all who come from SOM and think it's a
> smooth transition to the MOQ.
THINK I MOVED AWAY FROM SOM A LONG TIME AGO,
BUT NOT SURE IF YOU OR I HAVE MOVED THE FURTHEST AWAY,
CAN'T GRASP EVERYTHING YOU SAY, & CAN SEE THAT YOU CAN'T
GRASP WHAT I AM SAYING, THEREFORE=FOG
>
> > 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.
>
> A super-DQ that divides into DQ/SQ is dubious. It compares to a
> GOD who is prior to the usual God. No I think it more reasonable
> to regard the MOQ a VALUE reality that constitutes the static
> system.
AS STEVE HAS POINTED OUT, I THINK THIS IS PRETTY CLOSE
TO PIRSIG WHAT I SAY ABOVE, I THINK DQ HAS ASPECTS TO IT
THAT HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO GODS IN THE PAST, I AM NOT
KEEN TO TALK ABOUT GODS, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING SACRED
ABOUT DQ, THAT IS A VALUE STATEMENT IN CASE YOU ARE FEELING
SLEEPY.
>
> > 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?
>
> This is semantics. The subject/object metaphysics is a S/O
> reality, the MOQ a DQ/SQ one. No "everything" waiting to be so
> divided. It compares to "being dead" which is an impossibility;
> yet, a "state" that language forces upon us us creating much
> anxiety - horror maybe.
WRONG. IT IS LIKE NOTHINGNESS, AND THEREFORE
QUALITY AS PIRSIG DISCUSSES IN RELATION TO EASTERN
THOUGHT, UNDIFFERENTIATED EVERYTHING IS VERY CLOSE
TO OR EVEN EQUAL TO NOTHINGNESS, AND HEY, THERE
HAS TO BE SOME AWE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A
COSMOS RATHER THAN A NOTHINGNESS, IT IS QUITE
SOME SQ ACHIEVEMENT
>
> > I say that SOM almost ignores DQ in its scheme
> > but if anywhere it shows something of itself in the subject.
>
> SOM not only ignores DQ it ignores VALUE as anything but part
> of its subjective realm.
>
> > You can
> > see this in German idealism, where it talks about the world being
> > constituted by the subject.
>
> Yes, that's the idealist (subjective) half of SOM, the materialist
> (objective) camp protest this and says ...you know.
YES, AND BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG OF COURSE ON THEIR
OWN, BUT TOGETHER THEY ALSO HAVE AN ELEMENT OF TRUTH
IN EACH, MOQ IS BETTER BECAUSE IT HAS LESS PROBLEMS IN IT
AND IS LESS CAPABLE TO DETERIORATE INTO DYNAMICISM
AND STATICISM TO USE AN ANALOGY TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SOM
DO YOU GET THIS?
>
> > 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).
>
> He he, well it may be seen that way, on the other hand ...:-)
I ONLY PUT THIS FORWARD AS A WAY OF TRYING TO GRASP
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOM AND MOQ
>
> > 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.
>
> Firstly: The intellectual level is correctly interpreted as 'reason',
> but reason is incorrectly interpreted as thinking or logic (the ability
> to reason), and as such it is used in ALL philosophical systems -
> those that belong to the social level as well - to prove the
> existence of anything: God, heaven and hell, ghosts, nirvana,
> samsara ... you name it. But in the MOQ it becomes the true
> (dictionary) kind: The value of "objectivity over subjectivity".
WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN WHAT REASON, LOGIC,
THINKING, ORDER, INTELLECT MEAN IN YOUR SCHEME
AND HOW THEY RELATE TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE IT
SEEMS ODD TO ME
>
> Now, the Greeks obsessed with SQ...etc. ALL static levels are
> "obsessed with its particular value and the SOM that grew from
> the Greek experience is not merely "objectivism" but
> "subjectivism" as well; IT IS THE MIND/MATTER UNIVERSE
> where - as soon as the subjective part is established - the
> objective thwarts the logic ...and vice versa. I may do Heidegger
> injustice maybe his "being" corresponds to DQ, but without a
> "static becoming" realm he has not created the same great
> system.
I THINK PIRSIG IS BETTER ON STATIC QUALITY THAN HEIDEGGER
IN FACT BUT HEIDEGGER IS BETTER ON DQ AND ALSO HE
HAS A LOT MORE TO SAY ABOUT REASON, LOGIC, ETC
OH YEAH THOSE WORDS AGAIN. IN FACT HEIDEGGER STARTED
OFF AS A LOGIC SPEACIALIST
>
> > 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).
>
> The method of placing objects in the inorganic and biological
> levels does not work, why I say that Intellect is the VALUE of the
> S/O divide. Thereby they are static, but in addition SUBJECTS
> are static too, something that is entirely in the MOQ "spirit" after
> Pirsig had seen in ZMM that intellect created the S/O divide
>
> > 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.
>
> Please David, this is no good, the SOL interpretation makes short
> thrift of the whole bl...dy SOM juggernaut. That's its beauty and
> why I will fight any re-introduction of SOM till the end.
SEE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ME BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU HERE
WHEN YOU THINK I DON'T. I AM ONLY EXPLAINING HOW THE SOM
UNIVERSE SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD FROM AN MOQ PERSPECTIVE.
I THINK AFTER 17 YEARS OF GERMAN PHILOSOPHY I HAVE A GOOD
GRASP OF THE REAL COMPLEXITY OF SOM, YES IT IS CONFUSING BUT
NOT SHALLOW, MOQ IS BETTER BECAUSE IT HAS GREATER CLARITY AND LESS
ERROR.
>
> > Pirsig then goes on to discuss
> > levels. Levels are formed by SQ patterns. Inorganic object patterns,
> > organic object patterns
>
> Why SQ patterns? It is STATIC patterns. Full stop!
WRONG. GO LOOK AT LILA, HAVE YOUR STATIC LEVELS ESCAPED
FROM QUALITY/EXPERIENCE HAVE THEY TURNED INTO OBJECTS?
>
> > 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.
>
> This is the very uglyness: Pirsig introduces a Quality
> Metaphysic's that begins with the inorganic world ...etc, to start
> about "everything is human inventions" is to re-insert the SOM
> where the idealist has the upper hand: It is child's play to prove
> that everything is in our mind.
WRONG, EVERYTHING IS HUMAN EXPERIENCE, DO YOU
HAVE ANY NON-HUMAN EXPERIENCES??????
EXPERIENCE IS THE WHOLE BEFORE ANY MIND/MATTER
DISTINCTION, IT DOES NOT, & I DO NOT IMPLY
ANY SUCH DISTINCTION, I THINK THIS IS YOUR PREJUDICE
YOU ARE SEEING SOM WHERE IT IS NOT IMPLIED,
AS PIRSIG POINTS OUT IN ZMM, IT IS ONLY AFTER THE SO
DIVIDE THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT MIND/MATTER
>
> After the SOM is rejected - convincingly in ZMM - it is poison to
> go back to the mind/matter premises, why I said that I despaired
> over some utterings in Lila's Child. Pirsig has created a new world
> and in this the subjective/objective is made a static level and thus
> without any metaphysical bearing. One may reject the MOQ ..by
> all means, say that it is nonsense from end to end, but if one
> accepts it, it must be accepted totally. The halfway method is
> doomed.
I DO NOT PROPOSE ANY KEEPING OF SOM IT IS
YOU WHO WANTS TO SAVE THE S/O BIT, I AM HAPPY
TO CHUCK THE WHOLE SOM INCLUDING THE SO,
WHY WOULD YOU BE UNABLE TO DO THIS? TRY EXPLAINING
THAT TO ME, GOODBYE SUBJECT HELLO DQ, GOODBYE
OBJECTS/OBJECTIVITY LETS STICK TO STATIC 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.
>
> I can't start from scratch again. From what I have said you know
> that this I regard as obscuring the beauty of the MOQ.
YOU CAN'T FACE THE PROBLEMS IT SEEMS TO ME,
I DO NOT QUESTION THE MOQ HERE, I SIMPLY
POINT TO THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATED WITH SUBJECTIVITY
IN SOM AND SHOW HOW IT RELATES TO DQ, TO ME THIS PROVES
THAT SUBJECTIVITY CANNOT BE SEEN AS FITTING SIMPLY INTO
AN INTELLECTUAL STATIC PATTERN, EQUALLY INTELLECT/ART/ETC
CAN BE DYNAMIC ACTIVITY NOT JUST STATIC ACHIVEMENTS AND
THEREFORE DO NOT FORM A LEVEL, LEVELS REFERS TO STATIC
PATTERNS YOU ARE TRYING TO PLACE THINGS IN LEVELS THAT ACTUALLY
CONTAIN DYNAMIC ASPECTS, A MISTAKE I FEEL. I SUGGEST THAT THE LEVELS
WOULD BE BETTER AS INORGANIC/ORGANIC/SOCIAL/INDIVIDUAL
>
> > 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.
>
> Ditto.
>
> > The matter/mind subject/object distinction and metaphysics are
> > overthrown
>
> Yes, for heaven's sake, so stop all this about some subjectivity
> clinging to the MOQ patterns ... objectivity too by the way?
AGAIN YOU MISUNDERSTAND, I AM ONLY EXPLAINING HOW
SOM SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF MOQ, & IN FACT
THEN DROPPED. I THINK WHAT IS TRUE ABOUT SEEING SOM
AS A FORMER ACHIEVEMENT IS THAT IT HAS PLAYED A
PART IN MAKING INDIVIDUALITY POSSIBLE.
>
> > 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.
>
> You certainly have learned something from the dreaded German
> Idealists :-) DREADED? WRONG, YES. BUT IN FACT, IF YOU READ
THEM RATHER THAN THEIR DETRACTORS, FULL OF
GREAT STUFF. VERY DIFFICULT, OF COURSE. I SUSPECT
YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND PIRSIG IF YOU HAVE
DONE GERMAN IDEALISM THAN ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY.
BYE FOR NOW BO, I HAVE ENJOYED THE EXCHANGE....
>
> 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 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 22:50:41 GMT