MOQers!
19 January DMB commented a passage from Caryl Johnstone's essay
that Ron had commented, but first the said passage.
"the only pragmatist element I see in the Metaphysics of
Quality is Pirsig's desire and intention to get to real life - to get
to "the stuffy, hot-ground floor of life as soon as possible" as
Matt poetically puts it. But the actual tool of thought which the
concept of Quality provides is miles away from pragmatism.
So much for DMB's idolization of William James as an even greater
MOQist than Pirsig himself.
The problem Pirsig had was there was no rationalist
framework in which his magisterial tool could make sense and
unfold. For, if you say that Quality presupposes an intelligence
in the world in which human reason can share and participate,
because this intelligence partakes of a deep structure common
to both the world and to human minds, where's the dynamic
element in reason itself?
At least I agree that the Subject/Object - DQ/SQ transition is a
quantum leap, no smooth transition as if the MOQ merely is one of
"the countless ways that Quality can be divided". It's the only way and
the DQ/SQ is the Quality Reality. Basta!
The MOQ definitely presupposes (an) intelligence and if Johnstone's
"this intelligence partakes of a deep structure common to both the
world and to human minds" means that intelligence has its roots far
down into the biological level and gives rise to the illusion of
mind/matter schism, I agree.
It is at this point that Owen Barfield's insights bring
considerable assistance, for Barfield speaks of an evolution of
reason, or rather of an evolution of consciousness.
While Scott Roberts was around I repeatedly pointed to the likeness
between Barfield's "Original-/Loss of-/Re-gaining of participation"
scheme and the Aretê/SOM/Quality development in ZAMM (the
Social/Intellectual/MOQ in LILA) But Scott was fixated on Barfield and
insisted that (if so) all is an intellectual development, because
Barfield's is (as Caryl says) "an evolution of "consciousness".
Caryl Johnstone concludes:
This concept is the missing key, for it enables us to attach the
concepts of Static and Dynamic Quality to reason itself."
If the missing key is "reason" and it is identical to the intellectual level
(for what is reason but S/O?) all is well. The MOQ is clearly a result of
rational thought and a system where reason is the highest static value.
Ron said:
> As Caryl Johnston states, "The problem Pirsig had was there was no
> rationalist framework in which his magisterial tool could make sense
> and unfold" I feel she suspected the same thing as Bo but fail to see
> the cultural implications that SOM brings to the MoQ table in contrast
> to the "Big picture" that MoQ ultimately supplies. It's tying these
> two together that brings the weirdness. Especially when you start
> making the shifts from SOL to MOQ ...As DmB said "things get weird."
> But I truly believe in my "softened" explanation, it works.
There is no soft SOL, the culture issue is a 3rd./4th. level "problem"
not a 4th/MOQ one
dmb says:
> I should ask Caryl rather than you, but I'd like to know what "the
> problem" is, exactly. I don't see it. What the heck is a "rationalist
> framework" and why does the MOQ need one to "make sense and unfold"?
> I'm not even sure what she means by "unfold".
Is it possible to ask her anything, if so please do.
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/
