Hi Bo Very interesting replies.
I think I probably agree that the S/O division plays a key role in the creation of intellect and individualism & science in the 18th & 19th centuries. So I agree that you need SOM prior to reaching MOQ. But I still see MOQ as an intellectual development in itself, what else could it be? What you say reminds me of Hegel, I was reminded recently of this when I read Rorty describing how Hegel saw SOM as a necessary step to overcoming the subject-object divide. Hegel being the first person to say such a thing in those specific terms (well German ones). Many thanks for your thoughts on this David M ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 6:31 PM 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/
