Greetings, Bo (Craig mentioned) -- [Craig on Ham]:
The correct chronology is ZMM (1974), "Lila" (1991) & SODV (1995). "Lila" could have changed ZMM but not SODV.
[Bodvar]:
Craig is correct on the chronology, but the SOM "encasement" that Ham speaks about was first presented in LILA (page 305 in Bantam Press' hardcover)
I stand corrected on the chronology (thanks, Craig). Nevertheless, I have always felt that the SODV discussion with its diagram of levels is the most succinct and clearest explanation of the MoQ hierarchy.
[Ham, previously];
Pirsig didn't really resolve subject/object duality. In his SODV presentation paper he labeled Intellectual & Social levels "subjective static patterns" and Organic & Inorganic levels "objective static patterns."
[Bodvar]:
About THIS I agree with Ham. The said encasement does not resolve or dissolve SOM's platypis. Had he (Pirsig) said that ... seen from SOM ... matter and living things are tangible, while social ranks and ideas are intangible it would have made some sense, but he actually says that the two lower levels BELONG to the material world and the two upper to the mental world as if these categories exist and the MOQ must fit them. Horrible!!
[Ham]:
If we lived in a moral universe, there would be no need for value preferences or morality systems, and life would be meaningless.
[Bodvar]:
Ham is correct here too, but this requires a little clearing up. To say that reality IS something is meaningless, even more so is the assertion that it can be split and remain, and it's here things goes wrong. Pirsig says that SOM splits reality S/O while it postulates one subjective and one objective reality. Likewise the MOQ postulates one Dynamic reality and one Static reality the Quality lies in this classification and makes them DQ/SQ. [snip] Despite Ham's peculiar phrasing he is right. Humans is a biological species that - first - rose to the social level and then (necessarily because they were the sole social level "inhabitants") rose to the intellectual level. But NB! it wasn't biological "man" who rose to intellect but "social man".
Bo, you wield a lot of influence here, despite your controversy with Pirsig's thesis. As a fellow renegade with an "alternate view", I'm allied with your cause. Indeed, I'd like to cement that alliance. But the problem I have with your anthropological man "rising to the intellectual level", thereby recognizing SOM which prevents him from understanding "Dynamic Reality", doesn't make sense to me. Why do you insist that Intellect is some "brass ring" to be grabbed by an evolving species, rather than an inherent capability of the human being? Was it not intellect (on man's part) that enabled him to theorize a value-centered reality? I find it incredible that anyone can consider intellect an impediment to metaphysical understanding.
Call me a contrarion, but it seems to me that it's this 'levels hierarchy' foisted on us by Pirsig, not intellectuality or SOM, that has stultified our intuitive thought. To put it very simply, there are two modes of reality: Absolute and Differentiated. The Absolute is homogenous, immutable, and uncreated. It has no "parts" or "otherness", and is the timeless source of all finite otherness. The Differentiated mode of appearances is relational, transitory, and constantly evolving. Its primary characteristic is its dual nature which is best defined as "awareness of other". Whether we are intellectuals or ignoramuses, this is the S/O reality we all live in.
We are individuated 'beings-aware'. We accept this as our existence because we have no other choice. Subject/object reality is not a philosophy, and certainly not a metaphysics. Its dynamics and principles are revealed to the scientists who investigate them, and are the basis of man's material progress in the world. To posit or define any other reality is speculation or hypothesis, best left to the philosopher. Dividing existence into levels, and assigning arbitrary labels to them, won't give us the magic to escape finitude or increase our wisdom. Yet, we know intuitively that existence, differentiated space/time reality, presupposes a prior cause or ultimate reality.
This is where I start, Bo. Where I see you starting is with Pirsig's four-level construct which everything must be made to fit. Unfortunately, those proprietary attributes of man -- self-awareness, value-sensibility, intellection, conceptualization, desire, and morality -- must either be assigned to a designated "cosmic" level or excluded from your reality perspective. And that, to me, is eliminating the subjective contingent of being-aware which makes existence what it is.
If I'm wrong in my assessment of your personal philosophy, I'd like to see how you defend it.
Sincerely, Ham 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/
