Ron:
Hello Platt,
I am currently working on another essay that does just that, but the one I have
completed focuses more on the origins of essentialism and how it developed
into what we now call SOM in our little MoQ society. In hindsight I shoud have
concluded with the Quantum revolution of the twentieth century.
Ham brings up some valid points althought my main focus is on classical
essentialism
which differs from his own brand of the term, I hope he does not feel I am
demonizing
his views I am simply trying to place a finger on origins of modern western
thought.
All my books term it as essentialism with Plato as it's father.
Bo brings up some good points too, while he does have a point that SOM assumes
it's view
is THE view and difficult to distance ones thoughts from, it still does not
detract from
the fact that this is still an assumption made by popular culture a "given"
that most
people are unaware of. Our little curiouse circle here are a minority in this
broader view
that Pirsig has provided for the laymen. I think the important aspect is the
difficulty
intellectuals face in changing a social level norm. SOM is that social level
norm.
consequently these social level norms are going to view the intellectual
concepts
of the MoQ as evil. Although I can appreciate Bo's efforts in softening the blow
with SOL as MoQ masquerading as SOM, History shows that the possibilty of dire
consequences increases in this way. Plus, this whole frame of mind is part of
the
problem.
In the same way relativity theory defines classical Newtonian physics more
accurately
MoQ defines SOM with more accuracy, the test of any new theory is it's ability
to define the existing ones with more clarity.
Platt:
You are onto something important in that Pirsig is the only philosopher I
know of who has taken quantum research into account, namely the discovery
that the dualistic mode of knowing (SOM) with its divisions of
subject/object, cause/effect, mind/matter, etc., is ultimately
shortsighted. One need only refer to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
to discover SOM's blind spot. A higher mode of knowing, the mode
acknowledged so forcefully in the MOQ, is that of pure, direct experience,
prior to any dualistic concepts whatsoever. As William James observed, "To
know immediately then, or intuitively, is for mental content and object to
be identical." Or, as Heisenberg himself said, " . . . the common division
of the world into subject and object, inner world and outer world, body and
soul, is no longer adequate and leads us into difficulties." And again, as
Erwin Schroedinger, put it: "Subject and object are only one. The barrier
between them cannot be said to have been broken down as a result of recent
experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist."
So now we have two defects in the rational subject/object, cause/effect,
mind/matter perspective: 1) it gives a false view of ultimate reality
(quantum theory) and 2) it makes no provision for morals (the MOQ). You are
rightfully focused on the first element of SOM's shortsightedness. I hope
you will share your essay with us because the uniting of quantum theory
with the MOQ is vital to our understanding of reality.
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/
