Hi Gav,

I'd not heard of Merleau-Ponty before; I think there is a strong connection
here with the work of F.M.Alexander and then a reinforcing tie back with
Alexander's influence on Dewey. Alexander's was a very practical approach to
the use of the self especially with regard to postural habit. Critically,
the technique he developed is based absolutely on none-SOM principles in his
treatment of the self as a psycho-physical organism where the practitioner
attempts to constantly re-establish sensory contact with the body and
thereby lives more in the moment.

Also, the practice of self-remembering (re-membering: again deliberate
re-establishment of sensory contact with the body while working) is, without
question, the most useful thing I took away from my time in Gurdjieff
groups.

-Peter

2008/7/29 gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 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 psyche that it is very difficult to conceive of it being superceded.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/
>
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/

Reply via email to