DMB and Discourse
On 14 Oct. you said:
> Bo asked:
> > I guess James' "aesthetic continuum" is another name for this
> > pre-intellectual awareness that's neither subjective nor objective. But
> > what does the dividing?
> dmb says:
> The answer is pretty well contained in the question. If
> pre-intellectual awareness is undivided experience and intellectual
> awareness is divided then, obviously, intellect is what does the
> dividing. And here intellect can't be equated with the subjective
> self anymore than an axe can be equated with the wood it splits. The
> subjective self is one of the divisions, not the divider.
Can't agree more.
> The MOQ
> simply says there are other ways to conceptually divide things other
> than along subject-object lines. As DM says, your question
> "re-introduces the idea of a subject ..and all the problems of that
> dualism." If Dewey, James and Pirsig are all rejecting SOM but still
> manage to provide an intellectual alternative then it should also be
> obvious for that reason also that subjectivity and intellect can't
> rightly be equated.
James, Poincare and Dewey did not quite reject SOM, they only
sensed a deeper context. To reject it requires a notion of SOM as
something emerging in time, and anything resembling ZAMM's
"Greek part" they didn't provide.
And please note: intellect isn't subjectivity, its the VALUE of the
subject/object divide. That is Pirsig's view in most of his
writings (see later).
> In that case, intellect still divides. Its just
> that one particular division is being rejected in favor of something
> else and they provide many explantions for that rejection. Of course
> they explain the advantages of this alternitive way of cutting
> things up. Of all the comparisons made by reviewers (to Hegel,
> Aristotle and others) Pirsig himself saw that James really did seem
> to be on the same page, rejecting SOM and using the same terms in
> offering an alternative.
You mean "... one particular division being accepted in favor ..."
no? Pirsig saw the relationship with James, yet he also saw the
MOQ something that added to James' thinking, thus the MOQ is
not included in James philosophy, it's the other way round, and
it's the new fundamental split - Dynamic/Static and the static
levels - which is crucial. Look to this quote (p 107 in my digital
LILA):
The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical
rejection of biological and social values is not only
rationally correct, it is also morally correct because the
intellectual patterns of science are of a higher
evolutionary order than the old biological and social
patterns.
It's plain that "Science" is a way of avoiding saying "the
intellectual level". That science is SOM's chief pattern is also
plain, ergo: SOM= Intellect. I know you will insist on SOM/science
as merely one intellectual pattern, but Pirsig says explicitly that
science is what's in conflict with social values, and we know that
it is the intellectial LEVEL that opposes the social LEVEL, thus
there can't be different (from S/O) intellectual patterns .. less
intellect turns into a mental vessel that contains ideas .... as in
SOM.
Why Pirsig didn't admit this obvious thing is a mystery, but I
guess it hinges on his notion of the MOQ as an intellectual
pattern, all of which has brought the MOQ into trouble.
> This is all laid out toward the end of
> Lila, in chapter 29 of Lila, after the MOQ itself is presented. The
> point here being simply that experience, awareness or consciousness
> doesn't have to be explained in terms of a subjective self having
> awareness of an objective reality. In other words, the point is
> simply that intellect isn't necessarily the same thing as a
> subjective self. And so I think one would have to miss this point
> entirely in order to assert anything like your SOLAQI.
> (Subject-Object Logic As Quality Intellect)
I thought you understood my SOL idea and "intellect the same
thing as a subjective self" is the very notion it rejects. It rather
looks like the misconception that haunts the MOQ: The 4th. level
as a mind that habours all kinds of ideas.
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
