David M. B. 28 Feb. you wrote:
Bo before: > ...DMB represents the view that the pre-everything's unity is > destroyed by our "definitions and conceptualizations. dmb says: > Huh? Concepts and definitions don't destroy anything...... For goodness sake, Pirsig's pitting Quality against MOQ is based on the false pre-concept/concept dichotomy that his Zen affliction has forced him into. And you follow like sheep even if you know that P.of ZAMM - in his initial thoughts about the Quality Idea - doesn't mention language, but speaks about Pre-intellect and Intellect. The reason for this blunder may be Pirsig's wish to have William James on his side because James speaks about the Pre-something being followed by concepts (what Dewey says I don't know) Anyway once the pre/post language enters as some ersatz dynamic/static it fouls the MOQ considerably because it is SOM to the core: language as subjective while what it is about as objective. > ...... They simply express and stabilize particulars. Language in the said SOM sense has no place in the MOQ's where it simply is a social pattern that ...as the 3rd. level is part of the 4th's fundament - followed into the intellectual level. Here however it was split by intellect's S/O into the said pattern of being a subjective shadow of an objective reality. > These static patterns are derived from DQ and are distinguished from it > like a snapshot captures and stabilizes a moment from the total visual > field. Language as a social pattern (following into intellect) is necessarily "derived from DQ", but it was intellect that gave it this quality you speak of: a snapshot versus the visual field, which is a repetition of the pre-something being captured by language, so again this is entering SOM through the back door. I run like the proverbial Dutch boy (putting straw in the holes in the dikes) trying to stem all these somish-intellectual leaks. > I don't see how a photograph could destroy the world of light from > which it is derived any more that I can see how static patterns destroy > DQ. I soon start calling you names if you don't stop distorting the issue. It's PIRSIG who says that DQ is corrupted by the MOQ because it is formulated in static words. Language in this sense must not be allowed else we are back in SOM. > I was thinking about one of the early scenes in ZAMM, where all four > travelers are outside their motel talking about ghosts. It's something > like a prelude to what's coming. It's gonna be a bit of a ghost story > insofar as the narrator is being pursued by Phaedrus and, more to the > point, this scene is where the reader is introduced to the idea that > the law of gravity is a ghost, that it's in the "mind" of Europeans > and that this a cultural difference between Western people and the > Indians who just don't see that kind of ghost. This campfire talk I remember as giving me gooseflesh the first time I read ZAMM and the hunch that this was no ordinary book. Yes, the narrator says that Phaedrus was out to give reason a good beating which means - in a MOQ retrospect - he was out to undermine the intellectual level which is and remains the block to understanding the MOQ's "inside-out" turn of making Reason-as-intellect a static subset of its own Dynamic/Static matrix. But I can't remember him saying that Gravity is a ghost in the MIND I think it was Reason's mind/ matter ghost he was out to trash. (I don't have ZAMM on this computer) > On the other hand, the Indians have their own ghosts and that they seem > just as real to Indians as gravity does to us. The ghost because Chris had asked him if he knew any ghost stories, and that it was the indians who "believed in ghosts (seen from reason) from the Indian p.o.v. it was their ancestors living in some realm beyond dependent on properly performed rituals to find peace - all social patterns. > In the language of Lila, this is where the reader is introduced to the > idea that there is more than one way to conceptualize experienced > reality. This cultural difference can reasonable be compared to the > difference between SOM and the MOQ, although the latter difference is > philosophical and deliberate rather than simply inherited. "Conceptualize" ...? The Indians (social level people) has no notion of themselves conceptualizing anything this is intellect's S/O having mesmerized you David into believing it's ghost of a reality that can be conceptualized differently. > This early scene is also the prelude to the attack on SOM. Here he is > already saying that "gravity" is not objectively real, that it is > subjective, contrary to what most Western people think. That is NOT what the Gravity example is about. He is challenging SOM's notion of a natural (objective) reality that sits out there waiting for science to discover the workings of, but as said I haven't ZAMM here so let's return to that. See you 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/
