Peter and Posse!
24 Dec. you wrote:
> Steve also said I had my facts mixed up about how the MoQ emerged. Can
> you point me to or can you forward me copies of the e-books please.
First about forwarding. I live partly at my studio and partly with
my wife and have a computer at both places. The said e-varieties
of LILA and ZAMM I have in my studio machine and when I tried
to send it to my other PC it refused, maybe some ... what's it
called, but I will try again to you - promise.Regarding the
emergence of the MOQ I'll gladly try a summary.
Phaedrus of ZAMM had got Quality "on his brain" and was asked
by his teacher colleagues if it was subjective or objective, they all
took SOM for granted. At first he took on the objective "horn". I
will not go into details here, but he rejected that: Value is not of
the physical world, and then he turned to the subjective. Also this
he eventually rejected and then comes the LEAP out of SOM:
And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his
knowledge had never been taken before in the history of
Western thought, went straight between the horns of the
subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is
neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third
entity which is independent of the two.
This resulted in the "trinity moq" of Quality and Subjects and
Objects, but that did not satisfy him in the long run and he started
to speculate ...
He'd been speculating about the relationship of Quality to
mind and matter and had identified Quality as the parent
of mind and matter, that event which gives birth to mind
and matter.
Here subjecs and object have become mind and matter.
This Copernican inversion of the relationship of Quality to
the objective world could sound mysterious if not carefully
explained, but he didn't mean it to be mysterious.
Now the "subject" is removed, only the objective world remains.
No trickery, just follow the logic.
He simply meant that at the cutting edge of time, before
an object can be distinguished, there must be a kind of
NON-INTELLECTUAL awareness, which he called
awareness of Quality. (my caps)
He calls it "awareness of Quality", this sort of implies an
awareness prior to Quality, but I believe he meant this to be
Dynamic Quality.
You can't be aware that you've seen a tree until after
you've seen the tree, and between the instant of vision
and instant of awareness there must be a time lag.
Now the clue. Dynamic Quality is "non-intellectual", then what
follows (what also can be called Static) is "intellectual quality" and
that is a subject aware of objects (a tree here). See the very first
division is - as you said - SOM. And what's more, Phaedrus saw
this divide as INTELLECTUAL! Not one pattern but what intellect
is all about.
The first attempt at a new metaphysics - the Romantic/Classic
one has Romantic=Preintellectual and Classic=Intellectual and
the latter is the Subject/Object distinction.
Here the metaphysical de-construction and and re-construction
ends and ZAMM goes on to show how SOM came to be with the
Greeks .
Then LILA and the full-fledged MOQ and with it the new
"intellect" that no longer was Phaedrus' S/O but Pirsig's
mysterious and constantly more untenable INTELLIGENCE-like
travesty. But so many scrambled to embrace it as as a new
Newageish gospel. Why Pirsig did his fantastic idea this
disservice is beyond me, but ... alas.
Let's see if the said e-books will make it across to you.
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/
