Hi Bo, A brilliant essay tracing the rise of S/O metaphysics to its present state as Pirsig's intellectual level. From Pirsig's new DQ/SQ perspective, the intellectual level is the value of the S/O split -- the value that brought freedom from the value of social dominance which in turn brought freedom from biological dominance. Now we are locked into the S/O materialist, reductionist, nobody-here-but-us-chickens mentality, seeking freedom from the "paralysis of moral patterns" and S/O constraints through drugs, sex, celebrity worship and other dehumanizing diversions, unaware that the answer is recognizing the world as a moral order evolving towards betterness, towards perfection. If that is recognized, then one's fulfillment comes from connecting to the cosmic current. Until that is recognized, the drop in both social and intellectual quality so evident in the West today will continue unabated. Please don't be gone long, Bo.
Best regards, Platt > MOQ Discuss. > > This began as a reply to Joe but grew into an essay and will be a > "swan song" for me because am to withdraw for an indeterminable > time (did I hear a sigh of relief) > > On 13 May Joseph Maurer wrote: > > > A discussion among friends! I like that. Yes, Bo, I lived before > > Pirsig wrote ZAMM or LILA. I had an education and I approach MOQ > > with respect, but it is not all that I think about. My > > understanding of your concern is that we should not discuss > > evolution from any other viewpoint than MOQ. You understand Pirsig > > as saying that the highest level he discusses is SOL. .... > > SOL (the 4th. level=S/O) has implications for the MOQ but doesn't > question its basic tenet (so it's no sectarian) namely that reality's > deepest split isn't S/O but DQ/SQ consequently the SOM was and > remains MOQ's antagonist and most telling, nowhere in the history of > philosophy do I find anyone identifying a SOM, perhaps because it's > SOM's history (the wood and the trees metaphor) Like all levels it was > progress at first, only much later - as its complexity grew - did it start to > spawn "platypus" and around young Phaedrus' time they had become > acute, hence ZAMM's crusade against SOM, and perhaps why LILA > doesn't mentiones it, Phaedrus had been "killed" by intellect's (SOM's) > immune system) and the emerging Pirsig had forgotten his earlier > ideas. > > There seemingly were earlier efforts to tackle the S/O enigma, Hegel's > metaphysics began as an alternative to Immanuel Kant (who was > SOM' final word) but it didn't succeed, his (Hegel's) saying that "the > thing in itself" is even more ineffable than Kant postulated it just > cements it further. And his saying that there is nothing outside > "thinking" does not remove what thinking is about. No, the S/O is > ineradicable, Phaedrus stroke of genius was to postulate another > metaphysic that integrates SOM. This last point is crucial and where > Pirsig betrays Phaedrus original MOQ. At this site we see that no one > ever applies the MOQ to anything *) without such an integration (the > SOL) the MOQ has zero point zero explanatory power. > > *) An exception for Platt and Chris. > > As we know ZAMM points to ancient Greece as SOM's birthplace and > that it went into hibernation during the Middle Ages. Most telling > because the S/O split seems not to have concerned the Medieval > thinkers, to them everything was about religion and if God was a spirit > (S) or flesh (O) was no issue. This fits because the Middle Ages was a > retreat to the social-mythological level where the non-S/O is absent. > With the Renaissance (intellect rebounding) the SOM gradually re- > emerged, Descartes is a name here, not that he addressed the S/O as > a problem (at this stage it was entirely a progress) he merely stated > the fact that man was a (thinking) subject entirely distanced from the > material world. > > With Spinoza however the S/O starts to be a topic for philosophical > discourse and with the empiricists it became a real headache > climaxing with Berkeley who demonstrates without a hitch that there is > nothing "out there" all qualities are created by our senses (subjective). > This sounds much like Phaedrus of ZAMM addressing the objective > horn of the S/O dilemma, but these philosophers differ from him by > NOT identifying the S/O as a metaphysics, they took it for God-given. > Even Berkeley who refuted a material world postulates that it existed in > God's "mind" > > As said Immanuel Kant came to represent SOM's final word. Not only > are the sense qualities (taste, smell, sound, colors) subjective, time, > space and causation are also man-made "filters" that reality is strained > through before it reaches consciousness. What the said reality is > before being filtered (the thing in itself) is completely and utterly > ineffable. He called his own ideas a "Copernican Revolution". Earlier > philosophy believed that nature showed us its laws, rules and > relationships etc. but it was the other way: these originated in (our) > mind. > > And thus things stood when Pirsig arrived, Kant had closed the case > on SOM, he dominated western philosophy so completely that no > thinkers after him raised the S/O issue. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Marx, > all took up some other aspect of existence, so did Heidegger, Husserl > and Sartre. Even Pirsig in ZAMM began by applying Kant to his > motorcycle discourse so also he saw this as our time's premises. And > young Phaedrus' dropping out of school was after encountering the > S/O- generated paradoxes (that the number of hypothesis to explain > any phenomenon is infinite) but at that point he saw it as a flaw in > reality's fabric, only much later he had Quality epiphany and the > realization that the S/O was a metaphysics that had entered history at > a particular time. > > The rest we know. He presented the first alternative to SOM by > postulating that subjects and objects were a product of Quality and > that the metaphysics based on them (SOM) had arrived with the > ancient Greeks. In ZAMM only subjects and objects were the first > Romantic/Classic MOQ's (classic=static) subset and - most telling - > called "intellect". In LILA the static range had grown to four levels, but > the intellectual was no longer S/O, but something that resembled > SOM's mind. Later he tried to mend it (the Turner letter) but the > "symbol manipulation" was even worse than the mindish one. > > I don't know if this has brought the SOL point across to you (Joe) I > have the impression that most people believe that Pirsig's message is > that everything is theories and that reality (now called Quality) is as > much beyond our grasp as it was to Kant. And no wonder after all he > says that the MOQ is just a theory about Quality. But this is the wrong, > the real Quality message is: > > 1) "There's no reality beyond a metaphysics (no one can avoid > metaphysics). > > 2) MOQ's metaphysical split is along the DQ/SQ axis. > > 3) The highest static stage is the S/O (now no longer a metaphysics > but a value) > > Only this way the SOM is safely assimilated, any other arrangement > makes the MOQ a SOM subsidiary. Now a more sober tone, My folly is > to believe that something as enormous as a metaphysical (SOM- > MOQ) shift can happen overnight. Three centuries passed between > the quest for eternal principles and the first outlines of SOM with > Aristotle, and we don't know how many conflicts took place during this > time (except the Plato/Sophists one) and now it's just thirty-some > years since ZAMM's publication. It will certainly be a long haul before > "our" Aristotle arrives. > > Joe ctd: > > > I agree with that, but from my experience I accept a way of talking > > SOL that would accept that evolution is not completely dormant even > > when MOQ is the focus. Perhaps evolution has continued, and there > > is a MOQ meta-level in consciousness only? How many more levels? > > In SOM "evolution" usually means the biological one, but it also covers > the big picture from the formation of stars and planets, the emergence > of biological life on earth that eventually became imbued with mind and > rose above it all and became self-conscious. Hence SOM's impossible > conclusion: The world is either a mind product or mind an > evolutionary fallout. With the advent of the MOQ evolution is the static > levels, their emergence and internal growth, and about that we have > an endless source for investigation. > > So long > > 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/ 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/
