Kieffer 22 Feb. you fired a broadside in my direction:
> are you really suggesting that because Pirsig hadnt yet dreamt up his > 'Quality' ideas that Darwin was a 'somist', thats utter baloney! A man > who had arguably the single greatest idea in the history of science > was actually narrow minded and only able to see the world in terms of > symbol manipulation. SOM has the subject/object split as reality's ground while MOQ has the dynamic/static (Quality) split, and further has made the former SOM into its own 4th level (in that process the M is lost) Thus before Pirsig the Western culture was SOM-steeped, is this so outrageous? A "somist" is the no slimy creature, but one who regard the S/O divide as ultimate, and a scientist one who tries to keep the objective from any subjective infringing, the noblest of tasks. "Narrow-minded"?. As I have tried to convey Christendom became influence by Greek tradition (developed an intellectual attitude) and felt pressed to explain in detail how God - among other things - created the world, i.e. developed dogmas. Then when science discovered (Darwin in he creation case) conceived the evolution theory it clashed with the dogma. Judaism and Islam only have no theology and no dogmas and isn't threatened by science. "Seeing the world in terms of symbol manipulation"? See how Pirsig's effort to NOT fully accept the SOL by inventing the impossible symbol manipulation definition, backlashes. > Something is very ridiculous here! As you may > know Darwin wasnt the first to think or talk about evolution - only > the first to recognise it clearly and present it to the world; > similarly Pirsig, i dare say, wasnt the first to recognise the > singular importance of 'Quality', only the first to crystallise and > publish that idea. I can't see anything ridiculous except the symbol-manipulation definition of intellect. That there were other "evolutionists" is well known (Wallace) and that James, Dewey, Northrop, Poincarè had a hunch about something ahead of subjects and the objects, i.e. the S/O split not being fundamental is also well known, but Pirsig worked out the complete system. > To my mind Darwin, in describing how evolution worked, was in fact > describing something very much akin to 'Quality'. Yes, at the biological level, but Pirsig ridicules the necessary fall- out of Darwin's that life must have emerged from matter by chance. Bo before: > > and in SOM (or at the 4th level) there are only the matter and mind > >realms, > SOM is an activity of mind; rocks and plants for instance cant do it. > As you said to Ham recently 'No one living in an ordered universe can > avoid interpreting reality (i.e. "having a metaphysics")'; and that > interpretation, our mode of perception, is via subjects and objects - > but can that really be considered a metaphysics - i dont think so; > metaphysics is a peculiar thing that philosophers do (armchair of > otherwise), and so, in my book, only an intellectual activity - not > the whole of intellect as you propose. This is the inside-out turning of the SOM "sock" that Pirsig speaks about but not always obey himself. "SOM an activity of the mind" ... sounds as self-evident Ham's theses, but the MOQ says that the mind/matter distinction is (an activity of) SOM. If this isn't understood the MOQ is nonsense. Bo before: > > and animals (the higher) are matter only so complex that they begin to > > displayed mind-like attributes like emotions. > What a contrived view! And yet you will agree there is no matter > really; matter is only polarised quality with a capital Q. I will give > you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were simply being > linguistically expedient. First, my "expression" list - and emotions as the social expression - isn't MOQ dogma, but it fits so well. But the above was me trying to convey SOM's view on animals, not the MOQ's view. > But more importantly: that animals begin to > display mind like attributes like emotions - you seem to relegate > animals to something altogether inferior to humans, as if we have > something divine that they do not. As said it was SOM's view. Yet, the levels are a rise in value that cannot be denied. Also we must understand the enormous diversity the biological level encompasses from bacteria to the mammal organism. Yet the biological mammal isn't different in in kind from the amoeba, but the social mammal IS in another universe from the biological mammal. > I read recently that people born blind who have never seen the > emotional facial expressions of others will still, automatically, > exhibit those same expressions themselves when experiencing the > corresponding emotion. I watched a period drama on TV last night and > noticed, no doubt through association with your recent ideas, that the > expressions the actors were using were 20th century and it occurred to > me that 15th century folk would never emote in that way. Emotions are > part of communication and are widespread in other animals including > humans - you recognise when a dog is angry dont you Bo? About blind people ...is interesting but does it undermine the emotions as social assertion? Bared fangs and snarls evoke the biological flight or fight fear reaction in the dog world (also submission under the alpha male) in humans (facing a dog displaying such signs) it may cause the very same biological reaction, but in addition emotions like a hate of dogs in general. This is a true emotion, not the out-of-sight-out-of-mind biological kind. > > Now, enter the MOQ which divide isn't mind/matter but DQ/SQ > > (and the former M/M is intellect's value) so when I say (to David > > Swift) that animals seeming emotions aren't the real thing, it's not > > a somist speaking who wants animals to be low on the "mind/matter" > > scale, but a moqist who wants them to be at the correct level, > > namely the biological, not the social which came to pass with > > humanity and where emotions are its "expression" (according to my > > list). > MoQ is for people - and when Pirsig puts social and intellectual into > the mind category it is because human mind is what we have - we dont > know how a dog or cat thinks - but they do too think. Sure, higher brainy animals think in a language-less visual sense. This is intelligence and has nothing to do with the 4th. level > More baloney! You should become a Christian. Hate and Love - the > higher emotions - haha! What is love Bo, if it is not caring? Does a > bitch dog care for its puppies, does a woman care for her baby? These > fine emotions of hate and love are only expressions of social and, > more deeply rooted, biological imperatives. If a woman loves her baby > then a sparrow feeds its young through love also. You too my son. I tried to demonstrate the difference between "society in biology service" and the real article by a mother bear watching a male bear kill all her pups and then mating with him. Do we spot any hate or love? I wonder why these obvious things are so offensive to so many . 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/
