Jorge and Moqtalk 5 Feb. you wrote:
> I said in an earlier post that I'd be glad to > explore documentary evidence for the S/O distinction > in Eastern civilizations, well before the times of the > Greeks. I must say at the start that I'm referring to > the said distinction and not to a SO Metaphysics; > this needs to be said because, from reading various > posts here, I have the impression that some people use > both terms as interchangeable; IMO they do not denote > the same thing at all. This is interesting, but when you speak about a S/O distinction, but not a SOM it grates my MOQ nerve. OK, there certainly was a long time before SOM was established as the scientific outlook that dominates the present Western culture, yet, the first embryo must have had the potentiality of the full-fledged SOM. And this is what ZAMM demonstrates, from the first Greek search for eternal principles to the Western democracies there is one unbroken line. As you know my thesis is that the intellectual level=the S/O distinction (the SOL interpretation) thus an "ancient S/O " is incompatible with it. Another argument that will undo the SOL is the "ancient intellect", namely that people of old were able to think, calculate, build great structures ...etc. and this was the intellectual level. As you may have noticed from the Pirsig letter to Paul Turner he recants on the ancient intelllect, but in the letter to me (see my recent post for Steve) he forwards the "ancient SOM", f.ex. that the warning "Beware of Corocodiles" were SOMish. Jorge ctd: > I must also present at the start which is the > meaning that I ascribe to the S/0 distinction. If it > happens to be the same as that of those that read > this, all the better; if it is not, to know that we > might be talking of different things might save > fruitless discussions. As the term implies, it must > refer to the ability or capability of an individual to > distinguish between two realms or fields, the > subjective and the objective. That's pretty obvious; > what is not that obvious is how an individual can > distinguish or decide between one and the other. IMO > (and of some others) to be able to do that she cannot > proceed alone, she needs the agreement of others; in > that sense, the S/O distinction would belong,to some > extent, to the social level. This sounds as if the S/O distinction has been around forever and that it only took some clever individuals to discover it, but the MOQ says that all levels are/were dynamic creations. There was no S/O before the intellectual level - before SOM. > Take for instance the Nicoll's paragraph that Joseph Maurer quotes in > the thread "The inner world": > "Man stands between two---an external visible world that enters the > senses and is shared by everyone: and an internal world that none of his > senses meets, which is shared by no one---that is, the approach to it is > uniquely individual, for although all the people in the world can > observe you, only you can observe yourself. This Internal world is the > second 'reality', and is invisible." The first notion of a S/O distinction arose long before any contemplation of inner and outer realities. Nowhere does the Greek thinkers speak in these or related terms, nor about the individual as a loner inside his own universe, these are fairly recent fall-outs of what began as described in ZAMM. > I like that quote; it says most of what needs to be > said, about the S/O distinction. In Nicoll's view, for > something to belong to the external world, it must > comply to two requirements: a)to be perceived by the > senses and b)to be shared by everyone. Neither of the > two, taken separately, is enough. No doubt this is SOM, but very modern. > I reflect upon an object in my surroundings. I > believe it's 'out there', existing independently of > me, in a world external to me. This is a strong belief > of mine, even to the extent that I'm sure that if I > close my eyes and 'stop seeing it', the object will > remain there. I'm sure but not 'absolutely sure' or, > in probabilistic jargon, 'absolutely certain'. I might > be dreaming, or hallucinating. I could acquire far > more certainty if I call others (the more the better) > and ask them whether they also see the object. That, I > assume, is what Nicoll means by the requisite of being > shared by everyone. (I can't possibly ask everyone > though, that's why I said that the more the better). Ditto, these are latter-day reflections. > But still I am not 'absolutely' certain. It's > not enough that others also see the object because > there is something called collective hallucination. > (invoked for instance in the cases of flying saucer > sightings or by atheists as the explanation of > miracles). To acquire more certainty I'd have to find > out whether everyone is seeing "the same object". > Suppose the object is a pile of olives; is everyone > seeing the same pile of olives? The best way to > approach certainty is by introducing numbers. If we > 'all' came to agree not only that it is a pile of > olives, but that there are 143 olives and that they > weigh, say, 3.5 kilos, I'd be almost absolutely sure > that we are all seeing the same object.(absolute > certainty could be approached but not reached). > Otherwise put:I acquire independent verification that > the object exists independently of me, is external to > me, it belongs to the field of the Objective. OK you obviously recognize SOM's problem, namely that the two parts constantly tries to undermine each other, the subjectivists claiming that everything is MIND while the materialists claim that mind is a fall-out of MATTER, but this is metaphysics, your point is that measurement is something that avoids subjectivity. > Ultimately, as Sir Arthur Eddington, the > astronomer, used to put it, the distinction or > cleavage between the two fields is that between the > metrical and the non-metrical. (He also always > carefully avoided talking about 'a real world' but > rather about 'the external world' ). Everyone know that the S and O (from inside SOM or intellect) looks as if being worlds apart, yet reality disproves any "gap", hence the mind/matter paradox.The MOQ shows how the paradoxes came to be and how they dissolve in its light. > When did man discover the distinction between > metrical and non metrical? That's an idle question > which cannot be answered. Better put as: what are the > earliest documentary evidences about this distinction? Humankind measured and weighed goods for thousand of years without this triggering any SOM. OK, that is your point ;-) You conclude: > Not only that, but they knew correspondences > between volume units and area units: > "If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for > cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it > into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of > barley per iku of field." They probably didn't have a > word for 'function' , but this is a functional > relation between two variables: amount of > compensation, in kurs, as a function of area of the > field in ikus. > I'd say objectivity at its best. This just in > Mesopotamia. From the evidence at hand 'metrics' was > in place in Egypt at least 1500 years before that. But > this in another Post; this one is far too long > already. I'm impressed by this Jorge, you have proved that there are many kinds of (small case) s/o s, but in my opinion the S/O that led to the SOM is something else. You may see my point better by using "subjectivity" which is as much SOM as "objectivity". Nowhere in antiquity do you find the notion that things "exist only for us" (in our mind) or anything similar. The idea of an inner world different from an outer world was not invented. Sincerely 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/
