John, Marsha, All. 30 March John wrote:
> Marsha and Bo, Ron defined SOM as identical with Objectivism. And > Intellect is objectification. So there is a sense in which the > intellectual level is identical with SOM. Good, the Intellectual level is the S/O distinction in every conceivable sense (SOM minus the "M" which is taken over by the MOQ) > However, Bo's problem stems from a problem with Pirsig naming the 4th > level after "intellect". It is my assertion that a better term for > the 4th is the Philosophical level. In a sense I agree. Philosophy is identical to intellect both as a term and as the Q-level, it's a search for objective truth in contrast to subjective nonsense. However it's nothing wrong with the term "intellect", it really means the objective attitude. > And I believe there are philosophies which transcend intellectualism or > objectivism. The MoQ being one of them. Right you are, but here is the catch. SOM has decided that philosophy is a subjective theory ABOUT objective reality and this secures anything from the breaking its circle. Pirsig made a viable attempt by his initial definition of no-one able to avoid metaphysics which makes metaphysics =REALITY, but fell back into the Aristotelian flock by his slandering of the MOQ as just another theory about reality. That reality now was Quality doesn't mean a thing. Reality must be the DQ/SQ to have any impact. He had it all in his grasp and then let it go, just in the hope that the MOQ would be house clean with Academy ... Phew! > But there are many hints and nuances of "perennialism" in Pirsig's > writings to join the MoQ as a non-objectivist cosmology that I find > this whole shtick of Bo's assigning the 4th level as SOM - value free > metaphysics, almost as annoying as him relegating all mysticisms to > social level religious "lower" status. I'm not sure if I understand this. The MOQ surely is non-objectivist, but it is non-subjectivist too, the S/O distinction is its intellectual level. This you seemed to agree with ...no? Regarding mysticism, subliminal experience, pre-intellectual awareness, direct experience ....whatever name this indescribably wellspring is given it's reality's dynamic aspect. It's just the Semitic type religions I deem social value. John to Marsha: > When you say: > > If one accepts the MoQ, then Reality has gone from being subjects and > > objects -to- Reality being Quality(Dynamic/static,) from a metaphysics > > based on subjects/objects to a metaphysics based quality, from a dualism > > to a monism, from SOM to MoQ. > I want to make one point is that according to the MoQ, "Reality" is > just as undefinable as Quality, eh? So don't make an ambiguous > assumption on the meaning of reality in that SOM definition and equate > it with what the MoQ is saying about Reality. Marsha is correct, SOM postulates one subjective and one objective reality. The MOQ postulates one Quality Reality which is dynamic/static-divided. The MOQ does not say that "reality is indefinable ...etc." it says that its dynamic aspect is indefinable, full stop!. 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/md/archives.html
