hmm; yes the adoption of aleph beth sounds likely the birth of SOM. -Peter
2008/7/29 gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > i have heard of the alexander technique...very interesting. alexander > developed it after he began to lose his voice...not the best for a stage > actor. he sought help and nought worked until he started to work with his > own posture and body-awareness. > i like the remembering idea. gurdieff - i will have to have a squiz one > day. > > just been reading about the alphabet - seems the adoption of the hebraic > 'alpha beth' into greece (circa 800 bc) was a key moment. it took a couple > of hundred years or so to challenge the oral tradition of the bards > (sophists) and it was its complete severance from any phenomenal connexion > that enabled SOM to gain its first ascendancy. > the hebraic alpha beth was still connected to the sensible world. each > letter's name corresponded to an animal or plant etc and the very letter > itself often had a pictographic resemblance to the corresponding entity > aswell (Aleph, A, is also hebraic for Ox, turn A upside down, as it is > written in hebrew, and it looks like an ox head). > when the greeks took on this alphabet they lost any phonetic/pictographic > correspondences with the sensible world. the matter had become entirely > abstract. a was still alpha but it no longer meant ox. a/alpha was the > beginning of the abstract world of eternal unchanging forms, which in turn > became a buttress for an idealized acorporeal heaven. the connection with > the earth is severed by the very sounds - language - that grew from the > primordial kinship and dynamic interplay of the human and the living world. > > anyway i will leave it there for no...david abram is the man and spell of > the sensuous the book > > > --- On Tue, 29/7/08, Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [MD] SOM - do we need it? > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Received: Tuesday, 29 July, 2008, 6:26 PM > > 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/ > > > 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/
