Hi Ham, Seems to me if there's an "anguish" around here it's your continual frustration with premises of the MOQ. If you want to stick with SOM as the one right worldview, no one objects, least of all Pirsig himself:
"Or, using another analogy, saying that a Metaphysics of Quality is false and a subject-object metaphysics is true is like saying that rectangular coordinates are true and polar coordinates are false. A map with the North Pole at the center is confusing at first, but it's every bit as correct as a Mercator map. In the Arctic it's the only map to have. Both are simply intellectual patterns for interpreting reality and one can only say that in some circumstances rectangular coordinates provide a better, simpler interpretation." (Lila, 8) But I venture to say that most of here believe that SOM comes a cropper when trying to explain the worth of anything including pennies, piggy banks and intellectual processes. Because when you come right down to it, worth (value) isn't just a sometime thing. It's the whole thing. No matter how you try, you can't escape it. It's real before anything else is real including, and most importantly, one's thoughts about what is real. That's why I and others hold it to be a better metaphysics than others we know. My thoughts too, for what they're "worth." :-) Holiday greetings and best wishes, Platt > Andre [Bovar mentioned] -- > > > Gentlemen, I'm certainly not the one to explain Pirsig's meanings or > define > the MoQ. My reasons for hanging in here are 1) to absorb what I can about > this philosophy, without the hierarchy of levels, and 2) hopefully to > learn > something that will make sense to an 'SOMist' like myself. > > This 1/28 statement of yours reveals the anguish you folks are going > through > to reconcile an arbitrary four-level paradigm of reality with the reality > we > all experience (as observing subjects). > > > Bodvar argues ( I do not want to miss represent you) that there is > > something not quite right at the intellectual level (to put it > mildly). > > Here I just want to throw in my bit so please bear with me. > > > > If the intellectual level is 'confined' to the 'skilled manipulation > of > > abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience > > and which behave according to rules of their own' (this points indeed > > to math, logic, computer programming etc) but my question is: > > 'What are we then intellectualising about? what the fuck (pardon me) > > is going on here? Are we intellectualising about intellectualising or > are > > we intellectualising about learning to understand inorganic, organic > and > > social PoV's?...and at the intellectual level trying to > dominate/control > > these? Where is the connection? > > I couldn't agree more that "there is something not right at the > intellectual > level", and I think you have identified the problem. The "connection", of > course, is the cognizant subject (which Pirsig wants to eliminate). As > the > reasoning and conceptualizing power of man, "intellect" is not just > "manipulating abstract symbols". It's integrating forms and properties > perceived by the senses into meaningful constructs that make our > experienced > world a cogent system. > > When you count the pennies in your piggy-bank, you're not just using > mathematics and symbols, you're touching and handling real coins and > arranging them in an orderly way. When you later "figure out" how many > more > pennies you'll need to purchase a greeting card, you're not just adding > and > subtracting numerical symbols, you're retrieving those images of the coins > and imagining those extra coins you're hoping to find, earn or borrow. > It's > all "intellectualizing", folks! Whether you're dealing with tangible > objects in "real time" or thinking about it "abstractly" at another time, > all conscious activity falls under the process we call intellection. > > Can we not then say that the intellect "dominates" conscious awareness? > If > so, why try to separate it as a level apart from social, organic, and > inorganic reality? Being aware of reality involves all three of these > "objective" categories, PLUS the conscious subject. Sure, a disc-shaped > coin is a different form or objective pattern than, say, the water in a > glass. But being-aware is a duality (dichotomy), not a tetrology. The > content of our awareness is objective reality--whether it's inorganic, > organic, or social. What's the point of eliminating the subject/object > duality (which doesn't have to be explained) only to replace it with a > more > cumbersome and confusing four-level hierarchy? > > It seems to me that what Mr. Pirsig is describing in his box of SQ levels > is > experiential existence. Outside this box MAY lie the ultimate > metaphysical > reality -- Potentiality, Essence, DQ, Nothingness? We don't know, > because > we don't experience it. That, I submit, is the unknown which philosophy > should seek, not slicing up ordinary experience into levels of PoVs that > don't make sense without a subject to intellectualize them. > > (My thoughts, for what they are worth.) > > Best wishes, > 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/
