DMB I only download and send once a day so my posts are often out of sync.
25 Feb.: Bodvar before: > > ...Here I describe intellect's own - internal - view. It regards > > everything through its S/O glasses and as said in case of language it > > manifests in concepts=subjective/what it conceptualizes= objective. Get > > it? dmb says: > I get what you're saying. As you see it, the distinction between > subjective and objective more or less equates to the distinction > between static intellectual patterns and Dynamic Quality and this is > why you're concerned about Pirsig's claim that the MOQ is to be > distinguished from the DQ that it talks about. Thus, you think, the > MOQ has slipped back into SOM. Isn't that about right? Yes, you got it, but note, it's Pirsig in the "Summary" who makes the dynamic/static uncannily like the objective/subjective. IMO this should not be done. > First of all, SOM fits into the static side of the MOQ so that > subjectivity is equal to the 3rd and 4th levels and objective reality > is equal to the first and second levels of static quality. Not this again! Had Pirsig said that "from the SOM seen inorganic and biological patterns are objective" it may have passed, but he actually says " inorganic & biology belongs to the material world" and "social and intellectual levels belonging to the mental world" (LC 529) As if there is a material and mental world in the MOQ, I don't believe it! This neither resolves platypis nor make any other sense. It's plain that MOQ encases SOM by making it its own 4th level. 80 % of LILA underpins this interpretation. > Your concern, however, is predicated on the notion that objective > reality is equal to Dynamic Quality. These two cannot even be compared, > let a alone equated. As Pirsig puts it in chapter 29, DQ is neither > physical nor psychical. It is the pure, undifferentiated experience > that logically precedes those categories. Agree, dynamic=objective and static=subjective is deeply wrong, but Pirsig makes just that comparison. The MOQ is subjective because it's conveyed by language while Quality is pre-conceptual > Secondly, the intellect makes distinctions and cuts things up in > either case, whether we're talking about SOM or the MOQ. All static level "cuts" dynamic Quality in their particular way. Again you are in the blind ally of language=intellect.. > Both are derived from experience but SOM cuts things up differently > than the MOQ does. Agree! > In either case, these intellectual descriptions have > to account for the experienced difference between, let's say, reading > about rocks in a geology book and stubbing your toe. Not sure what you say here, but since time immemorial people knew the difference between someone telling about a rock and the event of stubbing a toe. But we know that reading/hearing about a "accident" may cause your body to react, so the mind/matter distinction is false. > SOM will construe this as the difference between mental experience and > physical experience and not only that but also says these are the only > two categories possible because all of reality is either one or the > other, even though there are big problems trying to explain how these > two categories are related. Even more agreement, only that SOM is the intellectual level, all of it, every last bit, that's the only possible interpretation. > But the MOQ dissolves the gap between mind > and matter by putting the four levels together in an evolutionary > relationship and, again, by saying that DQ is neither mind nor matter. Yes, but only through the SOL is the mind/matter gap dissolved. Again, if inorg. + bio. are "objective" and socio + intellect are "subjective" the gap has only moved to between biology and society. > Thirdly, you seem to think that the MOQ's intellectual level is equal > to SOM simply because it makes distinctions. But that's just what > intellect does. The 4th. level does not make any distinctions. Pre-intellect level people knew the difference between up and down, man and woman, hot and cold ...etc. Intellect is the VALUE OF THE S/O DISTINCTION! > The mystics of all cultures are interested in going > beyond intellect and very often you'll hear this expressed in terms of > going beyond the pairs of opposites. See, regardless of whether or not > one is working to get beyond SOM or any other intellectual > description, the trick is to see that intellect always chops things > into pairs, pairs that more or less define each other; up and down, > good and evil, hot and cold, wet and dry, human and divine, man and > woman, child and geezer, static and dynamic, subjective and objective, > etc., etc.. Unlike SOM, however, the MOQ already has the transcendence > of the pairs of opposites built right into it. Latter-day "mystics" may try to avoid "pairs of opposites" because intellect has made language a departure from the holy pre- conceptual unity. But you never hear about ancient time's (social age) mystics lamenting SOM. "SOM or any other intellectual description" Baloney! SOM=intellect and has made "description" into a secondhand experience compared to the real pre-descriptional experience. As said "up/down", hot/cold ...etc" I've never heard anyone trying to avoid those opposites. > Finally, from my point of view you have been spreading confusion about > the MOQ for a long time and, obviously, I'm not too happy about it. > You know this. I've tried to explain this in various ways at least a > dozen times and every once in a while I get irritated enough to get > rude about it. It is extremely frustrating because you tend to dismiss > every credible explanation and every voiced objection and apparently > it doesn't matter that these explanations come from the author, the > only guy in the world with a Ph.D. in the MOQ or from a Master's > student like me. Why is this not good enough for you? How do you > figure that you know better than people who've actually studied > philosophy? It probably seems outrageous for me to say something like > this, but Jesus, how about a little humility, a little deference? I > suppose it's not impossible but what are the chances that Pirsig, > McWatt and I are all wrong about the MOQ while you alone understand > it? I'd say the chances are pretty damn > slim. Can't go into all this, you are a nice guy so any "rudeness" I regard as genuine exasperation. And I on my hand could have spoken about "taking candy from children" re. refuting your reasoning, but I refrain from it Keep thinking .... some day . 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/
