14 Nov, Peter Corteen wrote: > you are insistent that there is no subject/object distinction at the > social level, adding that the social humans of the stone age 'lacked - > or were blessed by not possessing - the intellectual notion of being a > lone subject facing a matter world governed by natural laws'.
Hi Peter I may sound adamant, but the above is what the MOQ means by the SOM. > You seem to suggest they were in some way better off because they had > less free will (freedom is frightening), their postures and behaviour > being more limited by social/ritualistic injunctions - we will never > know but that's a different point for another discussion. The first thing to understand is that ZAMM is pre-MOQ. Phaedrus looked to the ancient Aretê attitude and found it identical to his Quality - goodness itself - and presented SOM as the evil that replaced Aretê. Then, what characterized the pre-SOM Greece reality? Pirsig cites the Iliad about the heroes Hector, Achilles and their (to us) senseless courage and pride. This was not foolhardy but due to the fact that they lived in a reality where the present/beyond line was blurred "where gods walked among men", death no final exit.. THIS is one aspect of Social Value we see displayed in the Islam world, where the jihadists seem oblivious to fear or concern about own security and why I call the Muslim world a Social Value focussed culture. OK, the gist is that - to some of the the higher level - the lower level may look like a "Paradise Lost". In its time - when the social level established itself (morals appeared) aeons ago - the biological level gave rise to the Fall Myth. That humankind had knowledge of good and evil pressed upon them by God and had to leave Eden. Phaedrus was a SOM-ist - an intellectual - that hated intellect's S/O and found his Paradise lost (Quality) with the Social level. This was well enough in ZAMM, but when writing LILA he should have cast his MOQ back on to ZAMM and asked: What was what I called SOM, Aretê, the Sophist ...etc. in a MOQ context? But this he didn't do and let ZAMM sail its own sea, and this ZAMM/LILA discrepancy haunts the MOQ and will forever, lest my SOL interpretation is accepted. You hopefully understand? > You are confident that the Stone-agers recognised self from other; > doesn't that alone indicate that their thinking was based on subjects > and objects? When in doubt use the mind/matter variety to understand the S/O distinction. > On the other hand, the intellectual notion of being a > lone subject facing a material world, that is, being objectively aware > of yourself as subject and the material world as object, surely this > is what we refer to as self-consciousness? Perhaps what you mean is > that consideration of the idea of subjects and objects can only take > place on an intellectual level, and that social level thinking cannot > conceive of such things? Let the self-consciousness - awareness - issue wait. Intellectual VALUE is all these dichotomies we use. Mind/matter, abstract/concrete, symbols/what's symbolized, culture/nature. Regarding symbols Pirsig suggested that intellect=symbol manipulation, but that sounds like language, the real thing is the distinction between a symbol realm and a "what's symbolized" realm. This DISTINCTION can't be overrated, but is so terrible difficult for us to see because we are submerged in intellect. It's a herculeant task to rise above it. Enough for now 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/
