Steve and Moqtalkers.
On 16 Jan. you wrote:
dave says:
> >> Think about that analytic knife. That's intellect. It can slice up
> >> reality in any number of ways. Subjects and objects are just one
> >> way to divide experience.
Bo said:
> >The first about intellect as the analytic knife is right, and the
> >said knife is according to (ZAMM)
The knife of subjectivity-and-objectivity had cut Quality in
two and killed it as a working concept. If he was going to
save it, he couldn't let that knife get it.
> >But this confirms SOL and we can't have that can we? DMB
> >launches the assertion that ..."intellect can slice up reality in
> >any number of ways" in the hope that no one remembers ZAMM.
Steve concludes:
> It is not DMB's assertion but Pirsig's:
You have a point, I quote the parts that underpins the SOL and
neglect those that contradict it. But till this day I haven't
encountered one single argument (from the books and from this
discussion) that pulls the rug from under the logic of the SOL, the
moment THAT happens I will drop it.
You cite LILA:
"There already is a metaphysics of quality. A subject-
object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the
first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided
experience-is into subjects and objects. Once you have
made that slice, all of human experience is supposed to
fit into one of these two boxes. ...snip
Yepp, here is the Pirsig who believes that he can circumvent his
own splendid logic in (the Newton argument) in ZAMM. The
Quality Reality came to be with Pirsig, inside the MOQ Quality is
from eternity to eternity, no problems with this, but Pirsig of LILA
wants to make Quality a reality that he discovered - like SOM (in
its science form) wants Gravity to be something that Newton
discovered - and if so the S/O metaphysics must have been a
MOQ without knowing it.
But if this were the case the SOM ought to be "good", which it
isn't, a Quality SOM is indistinguishable from the ordinary article.
However had P. of LILA been willing to follow up on P. of
ZAMM's insight and seen that the moment the metaphysical
"rank" is removed from SOM (and transferred to the the MOQ)
and the S/O is left as a static level, it is immensely valuable, the
highest static good, only subordinate to the DQ/SQ reality.
LILA ctd:
The trouble is, it doesn't. What he had seen is that there
is a metaphysical box that sits above these two boxes,
Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he also saw a
huge number of ways in which Quality can be divided.
Subjects and objects are just one of the ways." (Lila)
This is kind of correct. The S/O distinction is a static level inside
the MOQ, and the lower levels are ways Quality is perceived -
the S/O-division is intellect's way - and inside intellect there
certainly are lots of S/O offshoots, but nowhere do I see other
metaphysical ways than the Dynamic/Static one. The earlier -
"Pre-intellect/Intellect" and "Romantic/Classic" - are clearly
embryonic varieties of it.
In in the Newton Argument I may have found the Archimedes
point that may pry some of you loose from the SOM-ish
understanding of the MOQ and over to the Quality one.
IMO
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/
