On Sunday 14 October 2007 10:31 AM Bo writes to DM and discourse David M. and discourse
On 13 Oct. you wrote: > 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? > DM: I see. I would say that there are many qualities that we > experience. There is no need or way to explain this experience. [Bo] There is no way of ESCAPING an explanation of experience and for the Western world this explanation has been the subject/object one. [Joe] Hi Bo, DM, and discourse I agree there is "no way of ESCAPING an explanation of experience"! IMO EVOLUTION is the correct explanation for experience in the Western world rather than the subject/object one. > The way SOM tries to explain this plurality of qualities is what > MOQ rejects for the reasons Pirsig states. [Bo] That's right. [Joe] I agree > I think you are > trying to find an explanation for the plurality of qualities and > think we need to recognise it in terms of an s-o divide as > if that actually explains something and I'd suggest it does not. [Bo] I try to apply the MOQ. Only with the MOQ did a Quality explanation emerge and in it the former S/O explanation is its 4th.level. But the MOQ is NOT an intellectual pattern, that's where Pirsig undermines his own great achievement. [Joe] In asking one level to represent the whole system of DQ/SQ evolution Pirsig seems to dismiss the importance of further levels. What starts and stops EVOLUTION? IMO not the intellectual level! > MOQ does not ignore the plurality of qualities and levels > of SQ, but neither does it need to see them in terms of an > S-O divide. [Bo] Of course the MOQ doesn't ignore qualities, it is the Quality Explanation itself, but I don't see the levels in terms of a S/O divide? I see the intellectual level as THE S/O divide, a view most of Pirsig's writing supports. [Joe] IMO THE S/O divide is a description of an EVOLUTIONARY dynamism rather than the intellectual level. As I look out at the universe, I see the Sun with its system of planets as an example of EVOLUTION! WHY? PROPRIETARY AWARENESS, the Social level does not experience S/O. Instead it sees a need for order to assuage its emptiness. The Intellectual level evolves from proprietary awareness-social level, an individual proprietary-awareness in the individual and an awareness of the evolution in the Cosmic order. IMO the Intellectual Level creates laws in two orders of evolution-- Cosmic, and Conscious evolution. In LILA Pirsig identifies Sex as a dual experience. He was not aware of the origin of the dance steps that attracted LILA, an action from S/O origin. LILA hides in herself in order to not be destroyed by copulation, an S/O action from an S/O origin. "LILA has quality!" was an unfamiliar S induced statement. Mechanical O actions and Conscious S/O actions. IMO there are two branches of evolution in one individual, and I am torn between the two. Mechanical actions primarily from an objective-cosmic source from gravitational behavior. Conscious actions, from an S/O subjective-conscious source of excitement for life. > But I can see why you might feel a need to > have this distinction to explain for the continuum becomes > divided, but this re-introduces the idea of a subject and all> the problems > of some entity that seem to be in touch with > objects and all the problems of that dualism. [Bo] The static intellectual level as the S/O prism makes a world of difference and does NOT re-introduce the mind/matter problems among which is the entity that seems to be in touch with objects, that problem is removed with the DQ/SQ replacing the S/O one. [Joe] IMO as stated S is from the level of Proprietary Awareness- the social level, conscious. O is from observation of the universe, mechanical from my point of view since I can’t do anything about it. The order observed in the heavens is mistakenly transferred to the social level creating false associations. The law of gravity explains the universe. Only emptiness explains the social level of proprietary awareness. My actions become mechanical from trying to intertwine these different orders of DQ/SQ. Proprietary awareness turns into mechanical obedience. Freedom is lost to order. Conscious behavior is overcome in conformity to laws. The proper activity of the intellectual level distinguishing one individual from another becomes a monster, demanding mechanical adherence to the laws it creates. I become mechanical in my obedience and I lose my awe for who I am. I do not accept a discovery of what I can do, conscious behavior, but rebel against what I have to do based on another’s experience, mechanical behavior. Only in the analysis of what I do, do I see the DQ/SQ continuum. Most of my actions are not conscious in the social level, since my awareness in the social level is emptiness looking for celebrity leading to a dogmatic-mechanical misunderstanding of law in the intellectual level. I am not DQ/SQ conscious, but only mechanically obedient. Conscious actions are confused in an individual choice. Most of my actions are only from mechanical motive e.g. habit, not conscious motive. And, then there is Pirsig suggesting a dual mechanical/conscious experience.. > MOQ suggests > an unfolding process of reality-experience where there is no > non-experiencing aspects being divided by special non-physical > aspects that do the dividing. Without SOM there is no distinction > between physical change and awareness of change. I agree about "..without SOM there is no distinction ...etc", the S/O divide must be replaced by DQ/SQ one - in addition to the level system being established - before existence can be seen as an unfolding process. It's the intellectual S/O distinction that demands an (aware) mind that registers a physical world (and its changes) . Bo ----- Original Message ---- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 10:31:57 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Forget about Empiricism, no thanks. David M. and discourse On 13 Oct. you wrote: > 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? > DM: I see. I would say that there are many qualities that we > experience. There is no need or way to explain this experience. There is no way of ESCAPING an explanation of experience and for the Western world this explanation has been the subject/object one. > The way SOM tries to explain this plurality of qualities is what > MOQ rejects for the reasons Pirsig states. That's right. > I think you are > trying to find an explanation for the plurality of qualities and > think we need to recognise it in terms of an s-o divide as > if that actually explains something and I'd suggest it does not. I try to apply the MOQ. Only with the MOQ did a Quality explanation emerge and in it the former S/O explanation is its 4th.level. But the MOQ is NOT an intellectual pattern, that's where Pirsig undermines his own great achievement. > MOQ does not ignore the plurality of qualities and levels > of SQ, but neither does it need to see them in terms of an > S-O divide. Of course the MOQ doesn't ignore qualities, it is the Quality Explanation itself, but I don't see the levels in terms of a S/O divide? I see the intellectual level as THE S/O divide, a view most of Pirsig's writing supports. > But I can see why you might feel a need to > have this distinction to explain for the continuum becomes > divided, but this re-introduces the idea of a subject and all > the problems of some entity that seem to be in touch with > objects and all the problems of that dualism. The static intellectual level as the S/O prism makes a world of difference and does NOT re-introduce the mind/matter problems among which is the entity that seems to be in touch with objects, that problem is removed with the DQ/SQ replacing the S/O one. > MOQ suggests > an unfolding process of reality-experience where there is no > non-experiencing aspects being divided by special non-physical > aspects that do the dividing. Without SOM there is no distinction > between physical change and awareness of change. I agree about "..without SOM there is no distinction ...etc", the S/O divide must be replaced by DQ/SQ one - in addition to the level system being established - before existence can be seen as an unfolding process. It's the intellectual S/O distinction that demands an (aware) mind that registers a physical world (and its changes) . 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/ 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/
