Hi Ron
On 31 Oct. you wrote:
> Ron posted previously: a quote from RMP:
> "Now, to take that which has caused us to create the world and include
> it within the world we have created is clearly impossible. That is why
> quality cannot be defined. If we do define it we are defining
> something less than quality itself."
You have expressed sympathy for my SOL interpretation
(intellect=S/O) but haven't (of late) joined that discussion. OK,
never mind, here you go.
NB I treat the MOQ from the SOL point of view, that you all know
by now.
> [Ron]
> This, is what Bo is talking about (I think). MOQ deals with
> pre-conceptual awareness.
"Pre-conceptual" means before language, but the early ZAMM
epiphany was about a "pre-intellectual" reality followed by
"intellectualization" (ZAMM 229)
Reality is always the moment of vision before the
intellectualization takes place. There is no other reality.
This preintellectual reality is what Phædrus felt he had
properly identified as Quality. Since all intellectually
identifiable things must emerge from this preintellectual
reality, Quality is the parent, the source of all subjects and
objects.
We see (that he sees) that only with "intellectualization" do
subjects and objects emerge. This is an important point because I
have the impression that many interprets this to mean that there
is a SUBJECT prior to the pre-intellectual Quality, but that's
wrong. Lest this is understood the MOQ gets a subjective slant
and I'm afraid that damage is done.
> SOM deals with conceptual awareness.
To keep to the early development we see that P. identified "pre-
intellectual reality" with Quality and the first moq (not said in
ZAMM) becomes a "Quality/Intellect" dualism. Later he split the
pre-everything Quality into Romantic and Classic where the latter
became Intellect i.e. the S/O split!
Here a point must be made. When Quality is split no Quality
remains behind, it becomes Romantic Quality/Classic Quality, the
same goes for the Dynamic/Static variety. This holy undivided
Quality and a profane metaphysical split (the MOQ) has created
much trouble. OK my eternal "axe".
> To conceptualize MOQ one must use s/o terms.
You are right with the qualification that concepts (language) isn't
part of MOQ's premises, Pirsig rather "levelized" MOQ's static
part and the 4th. level became the S/O divide. Now, because this
level was SOM before it became a Q-subset - and SOM was
what the MOQ had to overcome - intellect is what opposes MOQ
the most
ZAMM:
He felt that intellectuals usually have the greatest trouble
seeing this Quality, precisely because they are so swift
and absolute about snapping everything into intellectual
form.
(it explains why the SOL interpretation has such difficulties being
accepted :-)
> To dispel confusion, Bo suggests a Quality interpretation using s/o
> terminology to conceptualize MOQ pre-concept experience.( which is
> what we do regardless) ...snip
If you by "conceptualize MOQ" mean explain it using language,
and if "using s/o terminology" means to explain it in an
intellectual/objective/rational way you are right. Because the
MOQ has a dynamic component (pre-concept in your lingo) this
must necessarily be explained by concepts too. As you say "what
we do regardless)
> only with his SOL interpretation, the (this is a conceptual exercise of
> a pre-intellect concept) light is always flashing So it is never a
> question in the discourse of a discussion, thereby Streamlining the
> dialog.
This may be right too, just a bit too deep for me ;-)
> This may not be a big deal to some, but it sure as hell cuts the fat
> off A MOQ discussion.
Right!
Bo
PS
DMB had said:
> > Mead is saying that our "linguistic structures ..are not 'free
> > floating' constructions" but rather that they are "ultimately rooted in
> > the ..universe in which we are embedded". These structures grow out of
> > the universe as an emergent property, one that can't be reduced to the
> > structures from which they spring. And here Mead is parallel to Pirsig
> > in asserting that there are levels of reality and that these levels
> > exist together in an evolutionary relationship - and that we are all
> > those levels at once.
I really can't see Mead asserting any level lay-out. To her
language was the SOM-induced enigmatic phenomenon that one
moment is all there is ("we are suspended...") the next an
abstract description of reality. I do however agree profoundly with
DMB's conclusion about being all levels at once.
> [Ron]
> I fear I shall stain my petticoat with tears, brilliant.
> " Any philosophic explanation of quality is going to be both
> false and true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The
> process of philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process
> of breaking something down into words, into subjects and predicates.
> What 1 mean (and everybody else means) by the word quality cannot be
> broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because quality
> is so mysterious but because quality is so simple, immediate and
> direct.
This however I don't agree with, this is RMP upholding SOM with
his view of language as the said abstract description of reality. As
if words are something that detracts from the "real thing". As said
up above, language isn't part of MOQ's premises , to Phaedrus
Quality wasn't pre-conceptual but PRE-INTELLECTUAL. ln the
MOQ language began as a social pattern and that level knew no
abstract/concrete (S/O) distinction, language was a most powerful
means to sway the "gods".
Enough!
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/
