Hi Horse, > Hi Platt > > The piece you quoted was Annotation 132 in Lila's Child which was in > reply to your comment: > > "To fill the hole may require a new level above SOM. I´m not sure about > this. After all, > the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning." > Annotation 132 follows. > > Pirsig's reply still doesn't equate Reason with SOM. What it says is > that SOM employs reason, indicating that reason is an Intellectual POV. > The MOQ also employs reason, as shown in one of your favourite quotes: > > "Taken by itself that seems obvious enough. But what´s not so obvious is > that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is absolutely, > scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the patient. This is not > just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to some doctors > but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all cultures. It´s > true for all people at all time, now and forever, a moral pattern of > reality as real as H2O. We´re at last dealing with morals on the basis > of reason. We can now deduce codes based on evolution that analyze moral > arguments with > greater precision than before." (Chapter 13 Lila) > > So reason is not SOM because if it was then we would have SOM > (Valueless) being used to support the MOQ (nothing but value) which > would be a complete contradiction.
As I recall I've used that quote to show that Pirsig doesn't shy away from absolutes as opposed to many who confidently assert,"There are no absolutes." But that aside, Pirsig will use reason and logic to make a point to his readers who interpret their experience through the prism of SOM and are thus blind to the MOQ vision. However, he makes clear in his response to my comment that I missed the most important thing about the MOQ. In ZMM he explained further: "Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking something down into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word 'quality' cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct." As for SOM being valueless that's true. It looks out at the world and like Shultz in TV sitcom about a German prisoner of war camp, it "sees nothings" that looks like values. But SOM is not valueless from the broader scope of the MOQ. As Pirsig put it, "Yes, the MOQ only contradicts the SOM denial that value exists in the real world. The MoQ says it does. Thus the MOQ is an expansion of existing knowledge, not a denial of existing knowledge." (LC, Note 58) > Another indication from Pirsig that SOM and Reason are not identical is > the following: > > "The intellectual level of patterns, in the historic process of freeing > itself from its parent social level, namely the church, has tended to > invent a myth of independence from the social level for its own benefit. > Science and reason, this myth goes, come only from the objective world, > never from the social world. The world of objects imposes itself upon > the mind with no social mediation whatsoever. It is easy to see the > historic reasons for this myth of independence. Science might never have > survived without it. But a close examination shows it isn´t so." > (Chapter 12 Lila) This to me confirms rather than contradicts that SOM and reason are identical. It's about the SOM intellectual level arising from the social level and being influenced by social patterns rather than a comment about the relationship of reason to SOM. Or so it seems to me. > I think the main problem I have with the idea that SOM and Reason are > identical is that in order for this to be correct, then Bo's SOL would > be correct and I just don't believe this is the case. And neither does > Pirsig, so I'm in pretty good company. Point well taken. In that debate I'm on Bo's side. I think for the MOQ to be viable it must take a stance outside SOM which has to define its terms. Quality is beyond definition, yet we know it to be true. There's the rub. Thanks for the challenge, Horse. Always a pleasure. Best, Platt [Previously} > Platt Holden wrote: > > Hi Horse, > > > > [Horse wrote] > > > >> So can you give me an instance of where Pirsig specifically equates > >> reason with SOM. > >> > > > > "It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social > structures > > such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known. > > SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social structures, and the MOQ > is > > not subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. Remember that the > > central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything > else. > > It is understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any > > kind. Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as > useful > > as saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It > doesn't > > tell us anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it > doesn't > > tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ." (Note 132, LC) > > > > Platt > >> Platt Holden wrote: > >> > >>>> Hi Platt > >>>> > >>>> Just a minor point - why do equate reason (or "reason alone") with > SOM. > >>>> Surely reason is an intellectual POV and not a whole metaphysical > >>>> system. > >>>> > >>>> Horse > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Hi Horse, > >>> > >>> Bo has given a fine answer to your question. Here's another one. > From > >>> > >> the > >> > >>> Wikipedia entry on "reason:" > >>> > >>> "Reasoning thought follows a chain of cause and effect, and the word > >>> 'reason' can be a synonym for 'cause.' " > >>> > >>> >From Note 56, Lila's Child: > >>> > >>> "The word 'produced' implies that Dynamic quality is a part of a > cause > >>> > >> and > >> > >>> effect system of the kind generated by scientific thinking. But > Dynamic > >>> Quality cannot be part of any cause and effect system since all > cause > >>> > >> and > >> > >>> effect systems are static patterns." > >>> > >>> Great to hear from you. It gives me an opportunity to express my > >>> appreciation for the high quality of your design and maintenance of > >>> > >> this > >> > >>> site. All participants past and present owe you a debt of gratitude > if > >>> > >> not > >> > >>> cash contributions which you have repeatedly refused to ask for or > >>> > >> accept. > >> > >>> Be assured, however, that your efforts have not been overlooked or > >>> forgotten. I know I speak for many here in saying, "Thanks." > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Platt > 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/
