Pirsig's mission is to replace SOM with MOQ, so why are many on this list
reluctant to let SOM go?
the answer, i believe, is that SOM is so entrenched in our collective psyche
that it is very difficult to conceive of it being superceded. if this
supercession were not difficult then pirsig needn't have spent decades thinking
through the problem. pirsig is not the first philosopher to recognise the
subject/object schism...indeed this profound dilemma has been haunting
philosophy for centuries. to move beyond SOM requires radical surgery.
the intellectual cannot be solely SOM: the MOQ is an idea and it is not SOM.
to let go of SOM is to let go of the idea of dualism, of solipsism, of the
possibility of pure objectivity. instead the subjective becomes partnered with
the intersubjective (to follow husserl and merleau-ponty). the intersubjective
world - the previously 'objective' world - is the world of phenomenal
consensus.
with the copernican re-ordering of the universe a schism was created: the
everyday world of our perceptions was usurped by the idea of the 'real' order
of a heliocentric universe. the locus is not with our own body-subject and its
being-in-the-world, but with an abstract point of reference. this abstract
realm is only accessible by the intellect. in other words reason becomes the
sole method of recognising truth - plato's world of forms, christian heaven,
and the pre-eminence of (SOM) intellect all presuppose and perpetuate this
abstract-phenomenal dichotomy with precedence given to the abstract. in other
words the abstract becomes real and the phenomenal becomes epiphenomenal: this
is baudrillard's 'simulacrum' or the spectacular reality of the situationists.
SOM is part of this worldview and it can't be separated from it. to try and
hang on to SOM is to miss the point of pirsig's work.
the copernican revolution enthroned the sun as the centre of things; this is a
paternal standpoint. the earth is the goddess, the sun is god and the human is
supposed to be the dynamic union of the two. since copernicus the earth has
become merely an object and only god - the male aspect of divinity - is
recognised.
we perceive from earth. our experiential locus is the body-subject - this is
the experiential centre of the universe (god is an intelligible sphere whose
centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere - cusa). only from this point of
view can we esemplastically reconcile the realms of heaven and earth into a
dynamic unity.
if we need more proof of the need for SOM to be superceded we need only look to
phenomenology and existentialism. the psychopathological effects of SOM were
recognised and predicted by husserl and others (most famously dostoevsky). SOM
is the 'disensoulment' of the earth - of ourselves. it is the mechanisation of
life and human and it is this that is the meaning of the robot/AI myths - NOT
the production of truly intelligent autonomous mechanical beings, but the
production of mechanical beings from truly intelligent autonomous ones!!!!!!!!
so i entreat one and all to stay true to the core of pirsig's work. if you
think SOM is okay then you are very sorely mistaken and you should probably go
back and read bob's books again...slowly.
Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search.
www.yahoo7.com.au/search
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/
