Hi Bo!
On 31 Oct. you wrote:
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.
[Ron]
Sorry Bo, It was rather difficult to jump in having only recently poked
My coconut in this realm of understanding.
> [Ron]
> This, is what Bo is talking about (I think). MOQ deals with
> pre-conceptual awareness.
[Bo]
"Pre-conceptual" means before language, but the early ZAMM
epiphany was about a "pre-intellectual" reality followed by
"intellectualization" (ZAMM 229)
[Ron]
This is where I need some help with clarification between intellect and
conceptual, neither seem like proper terminology in this regard.
*Rueben Able said "" What enters the eye is not really seen until it is
organized by the brain. To see what is the case requires context, inference,
concepts, experience, and interpretation."
This has been a sticking point for me.
"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. "
[Bo]
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.
> To conceptualize MOQ one must use s/o terms.
[Bo]
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 :-)
[Ron]
Agreed!
> 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
[Bo]
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)
[Ron]
That's it!, see above about the explanation of the pre-concept lingo...
> 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.
[Bo]
This may be right too, just a bit too deep for me ;-)
[Ron]
Just keeping it simple ! I know, perhaps a little too simple..
> 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]
This is what I really agreed with also, it really seemed to fit my
understanding.
> " 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.
[Bo]
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".
[Ron]
This is what's confusing the shit outta me...the
pre-conceptual/pre-intellectual distinction... I think I need some help in
understanding.
Thnx!
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/
