Dear Ham. 28 Nov. you said:
> 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). I did not respond to your response to my invitation to discuss a special aspect of ZAMM because I understood you are incapable of looking upon history from that book's point of view, so it's funny that you "hang in here to absorb" ... etc", it seems the least thing you want is to absorb. Andrè before: > > 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? Ham again: > 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, if > "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. The manipulation of symbols (definition of the 4th. level) is faulty IMO because it's merely a definition of language, NOT because Pirsig eliminates the cognizant subject (it goes along with the world it is cognizant about. As existence's fundament that is!!) For Goodness sake that's it's very idea. Nor is it news to us that you see the said subject part of SOM as the determinant factor and as such being an idealist. > 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" howt > 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. I agree with all this, it's plain obvious, but why call it "intellectualizing" when it clearly is intelligence's ability to retrieve memory in the form of images or as language symbols. as humans mostly does? > Can we not then say that the intellect "dominates" conscious > awareness? There is no consciousness per se only the various level's value perceptions. The consciousness hoax is clearly unmasked by this thought experiment. All creatures above a certain complexity sleep, consequently when waking up it must be to a consciousness different from oblivion. What kind of reality does an animal wake up to? Try to ponder this question and you will - if honest - realize that consciousness as one fixed state and only "slumber" varieties of for animals. I know you appealed for us sticking to the human realm, but a metaphysics worth its name must encompass everything. > 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. Because Q-intellect has nothing to do with mind, thinking, awareness or consciousness or any SOM categories, can't you get that into your head? > 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? The S/O duality is NOT eliminated, it is the highest static value level only subordinate to the overarching Dynamic/Static Quality Reality. > 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.) Your rendering of the MOQ is of zero value because it is from SOM's premises, but your intelligence is superb and .... some day :-). Bo. 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/
