Andrè
(I have a post in progress for Ham so I just comment yours for me)
22 Feb, Andre wrote:
Bo before:
> Agree. No one living in an ordered universe can avoid interpreting
> reality (i.e. "having a metaphysics")
Andrè
> Andre: (I think I know what you are suggesting Bodvar but I want
> clarity) Disagree! Experience is reality. The interpretations come
> afterwards.
It's the "interpretation" term which is loaded to the plimsoll mark
with SOM: Reality out there/interpretation in here. When my
proverbial Cave People sat beside the campfire and watched the
night sky they really SAW gods and goddesses, had no inkling of
this being and interpretation because this was before intellect's
(SOM's) imposed its S/O - in this case the interpretation/reality
schism - on existence
Bodvar:
> Everything at the social was god-given, the individual a helpless
> instrument of the divine play .
Andre:
> And now, everything social is intellect driven and the individual a
> helpless instrument of the rational game. SOM to the core.
Right, yet, intellect is a higher level, the highest static in fact, and
as usual I alternate between praising and regarding intellect a
block on the way to understanding the MOQ
> Is the MoQ a 'rebel' intellectual pattern? Or is it a Code of
> Art(full) living? The latter, the former or both? Let's go for both as
> they do complement eachother!
It began as a rebel intellectual pattern *) - this is the level-like
relationship between intellect and the MOQ - that took off on a
purpose of its own. Yet, it's no static level of it's own system, rather
the system itself However, here we are at the end of our wits
where all/any metaphysics will encounter what I believe is Godel's
Theorem: the "God's Eye" view that recedes however much we try
to close the circle
*) Pirsig tries to make it sound as if SOM was NOT what caused
the Quality Epiphany (The Summary)
If you follow the development of the Metaphysics of Quality
as it is explained in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance" you see that it did not start with the question,
"What is the best alternative to subject-object
metaphysics?" It started with the question of "What is
quality?" A question was then asked, "Is quality in the
subject or in the object?" The answer was, "Neither one. It
is independent of the two and is the source of the two."
But it's plain from young P's story, being flunked from college, that
it was the mind/matter inconsistencies that motivated his lateral
drift. It's correct enough that P. at that time knew no SOM - the
mind/matter schism was reality itself - and that the Quality Idea
came first and then the "horn dilemma" that resulted in the insight
that subjects and objects were fall-outs of Quality ... only THEN
was the SOM term coined.
IMO
Bodvar
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/
