On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Simple language" Hmmm. Language can be simple or complicated > dependent on one's being familiar with the underlying premises. > Medieval times' disputes (f.ex. over number of angels on > needlepoints) are mumbo-jumbo to us while our times' (f.ex. scientific > articles) are plain going (at least we are convinced that the authors > understand) The former is an example of social premises while the > latter is intellect's (SOM) and now that I try to introduce the MOQ's > premises the same problem is encountered.
You think religious premises are on a social level and scientific on an intellectual? Social pertains to the logic,rules, and hierarchies of groups. Intellectual pertains to ideas. Even primitive peoples possess intellect. Even Priests think. In googling James Carste yesterday I came upon a pertinent quote - Dr. Carse says scientists who confuse religion and belief when addressing theism make a serious error. “What they’ve done is to take a scientific point of view and attack a belief system. But the only way you can do that is to convert your scientific point of view into a belief system. So it becomes an ideological battle that really doesn’t enlighten anyone. The best treatment is indifference.” Right there is the SOM problem, if you ask me. It's converting the scientific METHOD into a BELIEF. My point is that Pirsig originally presents a rock solid metaphysics > (the MOQ) that replaces the ruling metaphysics (SOM), but then > suddenly (in the "Summary") he presents another - what I call a meta- > metaphysics - which says that all arrangements of Quality (i.e. all > metaphysics) are just concepts and thus fall short of the goal, the > REAL arrangement is Quality/Concepts I don't see at all how "just concepts" can get you in a tizzy. Of course it's all concepts. It's all "just an analogy". The question still remains, how GOOD is the analogy. How much Quality does your conceptualization contain? It seems to me that what you are railing against is the way Pirsig refuses to get dogmatic enough to claim he has captured Quality in a perfect conceptualization. The statification of Quality = the crucifixion of Quality > This is outrageous (just introduces a new arrangement) and sends us > straight back into SOM-land of an objective yet ineffable reality that > we just can make conceptual theories about. Why Pirsig and his > acolyte DMB don't see this violation of the MOQ is more than I can > fathom. > The reality of Quality is ineffable because it is subjective as well as objective. Why? Because The statification of Quality = the crucifixion of Quality [Bo] > The "out there/inhere" schism is SOM and its shortcomings. Nah, that ain't SOM. It's just the way we think. What you are referring to is a little something me and my good friend W James like to call, "the error of conferring existential status upon the products of reflection." Lucky for you I have a supply of quotes handy this morning! Here's one redeemed by me from languishing in a Krimel post: "the philosophical 'problem' of trying to get them together (subject and object, man and world, self and not self) is artificial. On the basis of fact, it needs to be replaced by consideration of the conditions under which they occur as DISTINCTIONS, and of the special uses served by the distinctions". > Sure, things go on in our brains that can't be expressed by words (you > just understand intuitively) and for ages creatures with no language > lived by intuitions. Smell, taste, touch, hearing and sight, these have > an immense impact. Remember Marcel Proust and his mystical > rapture after tasting a particular tea & cake? The age when > SENSATION ruled was MOQ's biological level, but it has been > overlaid by two more static layers. You've really got your teeth in this "levels" thing and use it in a strange and inappropriate way. We don't go through the levels through the ages in a hierarchical fashion. All the levels are present at all time in a mutually reinforcing cosmic dance. A dance that moves through the circle. I don't know why its a four-beat dance, but it is. Peck's theory of individual spiritual development? A four step dance - Chaotic (like a babe or a criminal - self serving) Rule bound (like an ex-alcoholic religious person, a soldier or a policeman) Agnostic (scientific types) and finally enlightened Mystic (of whom I can't think of that many relevant examples) Or the four seasons. Or the MoQ. All four-step dances. With the social level - EMOTIONS - took over as the chief > expression, and when language entered the scene the silent kind we > call "thoughts" lodged on top of biology's sensations, an individual > could "say" to himself: "I'm afraid", "I'm happy" ...etc. and these > emotions-as-thoughts could be conveyed to other people, they could > be made to feel the same if the story-teller was good. "Biology's sensation" is emotional. Societies are dependent upon intellectual values in their formation. It's why intellect is dynamic to the social level. The evolution you posit here seems strained to me. Hey, I just had an emotion! I think I'll make up a word and use it in a story! > With the intellectual level the "objectification" of both sensation and > emotion occurred, these became SUBJECTIVE phenomena with no > OBJECTIVE ground. Intellect's expression - REASON - took over. > But the lower levels are there under intellect and we live as much at > these levels as we do on the intellectual, hence your ......" It seems to > me that there is something that goes down in my brain that is a > discrete (relatively) "concept" that I might not have the language for". > I am asserting that there are Intellectual concepts that I might not have language for. I think that's more common than failing to capture simple biological concepts. > > That language is conceptual and as such subjective is obvious seen > from intellect's S/O point of view, and that "everything that comes to > mind" is subjective is as obvious, but everybody will agree that sense > impressions can't be conveyed by words (one can only describe a > taste by referring to another taste or a concept like "sour", "sweet" > ..etc) nor can emotions, hunches, insights, but then, these aren't > "concepts" - not in my dictionary. Ok. We'll use your dictionary, at least for the moment, and see how your thoughts play out... On second thought, lets use the real dictionary. concept |ˈkänˌsept|nounan abstract idea; a general notion.• a plan or intention; a conception• Philosophy an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects.ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (in the sense [thought, frame of mind, imagination] ): from Latin conceptum ‘something conceived Thought, frame of mind, imagination. All semantically syonomous to hunches, intuitions and insight. > > Anyway THE issue is that whatever we want to express - even that of > something not expressible in words - must be expressed by words. Well in this forum at least, I agree. Up close and personal it's easy to convey a concept by action. Often much easier than putting it into words. And I like your distinction of "by words" as opposed to "in words". That's a good point. > All > efforts to avoid language is futile .... SEEN FROM INTELLECT - and > is why I'm so aghast at Pirsig's applying intellect's criteria to the MOQ > (it being just concepts [i.e. subjective] in contrast to Quality which is > outside of language [i.e. objective]) > That's a bad point. Pirsig is using words to "by words" explain something difficult or impossible put "in words". And I really come down hard on your last sentence. Quality with a Cap Q is not "objective" at all. And like I pointed to earlier, and I thought you agreed, things outside language are not objective either. Usually the most difficult "things" to put into words are difficult to describe because they are entirely subjective. A lot of what goes on around here, termed "MOQ" is actually the POQ, imho. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with first things. The broader discussions of reality dependent upon the metaphysical reality of Quality are philosophical ideas, such as the levels, such as the division of static/dynamic. They derive from the MoQ by being "good" descriptions which are helpful. Perhaps there is a problem in too much static attachment by having the author/philosopher assert them as good, and thus robbing the ideas of their dynamic usefulness. At least in the way people respond. Statification = Crucifixion. Tatoo it on your head, everyone. John 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/ > -- ------------ Doing Good IS Being ------------ 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/
