Hi Group, I brand new to this group and look forward to the discussions. For starters let me say that Prisig and others have tried to find the answer to dualism, reductionism, etc. in eastern philosophy and religion. I think this is a false path.
Here is a fascinating answer to the problems you, and Prisig, pose from a Christian philosopher. http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/ Regardless of your believe system, you will have to admire the scholarship and prodigious effort and creativity of this unique and fascinating thinker. I suggest you google Herman Dooyeweerd and read some of his writing. I'll be happy to direct you to more links if you need. It will enhance your understanding of moq and everything else. Look forward to getting to know you guys better and having quality discussions. Jon On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Horse, Bo, Marsha, Ron, ...! > > Horse quotes From Lila's Child: > Bo: A while back, we spoke about the emergence of intellect and I said that > in a way Subject/Object Metaphysics could be seen as identical to the > intellectual level of the MOQ! > Pirsig: This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude non-subject-object > constructions such as symbolic logic, higher mathematics, and computer > languages from the intellectual level and gives them no home. Also the term > "quality" as used in the MOQ would be excluded from the intellectual level. > In fact, the MOQ, which gives intellectual meaning to the term quality, > would also have to be excluded from the intellectual level.If we just say > the intellect is the manipulation of language-derived symbols for > experience, these problems of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur. > > All rightee! Let's roll up our sleeves and get down to it! > > Question 1: What is the Intellectual Level, and specifically, what makes it > different from the Social Level? > Question 2: What is Subject-Object Logic? > > I have a secret. I have asked for examples of non-SOL thinking that > supports the idea that Eastern Metaphysics would be excluded from the MoQ > if > the intellectual level were defined as SOL or SOM. Nobody has answered > this > to my satisfaction. I think this is because before we can answer question > 1 > we must answer question 2. I disagree with Pirsig above, "This seems too > restrictive. It seems to exclude non-subject-object constructions such as > symbolic logic, higher mathematics, and computer languages from the > intellectual level and gives them no home." Huh? I think he is watering > down his own metaphysics by adopting a very narrow definition of > Subject-Object logic. > > Here's the deal. Everything I can think of, every single thought I am > capable of having, is completely MIRED in Subject-Object Logic. I have > never had a single thought in which I were not a discrete entity in the > thought relationship. If I am thinking about any kind of mathematics, > symbolic logic, or a computer program, everything about those thoughts is > discrete. X+2=5. Solve for X. I am doing the solving for the quantity X > which is outside of myself. For that matter, so is the 2 and the 5 and the > equals sign. I am not at "one" with that mathematical equation. It > represents discrete entities from "my" perspective, where I am also a > discrete entity. I challenge you to think of any "thing" or "situation" > were this is not true. I can conceptualize all sorts of things. I can > even > imagine what it would be like to achieve Eastern Nirvana - but who is doing > the conceptualizing? Who just achieved Nirvana? Me. I am totally mired > in > my static patterns. I have hands and feet and my feet differ from the > floor > - they are not at one with the floor. I am discrete, and discretion is the > better part of valor (sorry, couldn't resist). > > We are all totally mired in Subject-Object Logic for every minute of every > day everywhere. The breakthrough, the singular THING that makes the MoQ so > important is that Pirsig was the FIRST PERSON EVER in the WEST to stand up > and point that out. His idea is enormous. Every metaphysics the West is > founded upon, everything we think we believe, everything we do is based on > this fundamental principle of DISCRETENESS. I am different from you. I am > "in" the world, a part of the world, but I am not the world. This we > believe in the West and all other Western metaphysics takes this as a > given. > It is not questioned. It is not examined. The enormity of Zen and then > Lila was when this one small voice, Robert M. Pirsig, sat at a typewriter > and wrote down the idea that the Universe as we know it is not composed of > subjects and objects - discrete things - but is composed of value and > Quality. Wow! > > If that puts Eastern Metaphysics outside the bounds of the Intellectual > Level, then so be it. So what? I say that rather than "demoting" Eastern > Buddhism or whatever to a "lower" level, what this implies is that the MoQ > is on the SAME level as any Eastern Metaphysics that says essentially the > same thing, and that BOTH are ABOVE the Intellectual Level. Is there > something wrong with that? Is it a heresy in this group to admit that > maybe > Pirsig isn't the only one that's ever had this idea? He's just the only > one > in the West - the only one I could understand. > > Sorry. Now that I've beaten question 2 to death with a blunt instrument, I > want to tackle question 1. Next post... :) > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Horse > > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:07 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment > > > > Hi Bo > > > > On 31/03/2010 08:11, [email protected] wrote: > > > Hi Horse > > > > > > You know how to revive the discussion when at a low, just introduce > > > the SOL ;-) > > > > > > 30 March you wrote (to Mary who had provided a long list of quotes > > > that support the SOL) : > > > > > > Admittedly none directly say "the 4th. level is the subject/object > > > distinction " but because intellect is the level that strives to > > control > > > social values and none of the intellectual definitions hitherto > > provided > > > explains any social control except the "objective attitude" i.e. the > > SOL. > > > See? > > > > > > > There's a good reason why Pirsig doesn't say directly (or indirectly or > > by implication etc.) that the Intellectual level is the subject/object > > distinction. It's because he doesn't see it that way. He also doesn't > > appear to agree with you that an "objective attitude" (whatever that > > may > > be) is required to prevent Social patterns dominating Intellectual > > patterns. This is just your incorrect interpretation. > > > > > Mary (ZAMM ): > > > > > >>> , the day Socrates died to establish the independence > > >>> of intellectual patterns from their social origins. Or the day > > >>> Descartes decided to start with himself as an ultimate source of > > >>> reality. These were days of evolutionary transformation. > > >>> > > > This one however is a direct and unequivocal SOL support. Socrates > > > represents SOM in moqspeak and if he also represents "the > > > independence of intellectual patterns from their social origins ..." > > ipso > > > facto! This goes for Descartes too. How Pirsig could write this in > > > ZAMM and then - in LILA - become so vague is a mystery. > > > > > > > Probably because he had twenty years or so to think about it. Vague? To > > you maybe but not for most of us. You tend to see what you want to see > > and ignore everything else that doesn't fit in with your views and > > pre-dispositions. There is no support for the SOL in what Pirsig has > > written. He has stated this quite clearly on a number of occasions. > > > > From Lila's Child: > > Bo: A while back, we spoke about the emergence of intellect and I said > > that in a way Subject/Object Metaphysics could be seen as identical to > > the intellectual level of the MOQ! > > Pirsig: This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude > > non-subject-object constructions such as symbolic logic, higher > > mathematics, and computer languages from the intellectual level and > > gives them no home. Also the term "quality" as used in the MOQ would be > > excluded from the intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives > > intellectual meaning to the term quality, would also have to be > > excluded > > from the intellectual level.If we just say the intellect is the > > manipulation of language-derived symbols for experience, these problems > > of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur. > > > > Bo: Long before the Lila Squad days, it had puzzled me greatly that > > Subject/Object metaphysics may be viewed as the intellectual level of > > MOQ! I even raised the question in a letter to Pirsig, but he did not > > respond. > > Pirsig: I don't remember not responding, so it must have been an > > oversight. I don't think the subject-object level is identical with > > intellect. Intellect is simply thinking, and one can think without > > involving the subject-object relationship. Computer language is not > > primarily structured into subjects and objects. Algebra has no subjects > > and objects. > > > > Personally, I'd call that direct and unequivocal rejection of the SOL! > > > > > Horse: > > > > > >> The above show that Pirsig supports the moral hierarchy of the MoQ - > > >> i.e. that Intellectual patterns of Value should dominate Social > > >> patterns of Value. > > >> > > > Right, but how the heck can - for instance - manipulation of symbols > > > "dominate social patterns of value"? Language is manipulation > > ...etc. > > > and it has been around since the Neanderthals. Come to your senses! > > > > > > > Come to your own Bo! How do Social patterns control Biological > > patterns? > > The analogy is obvious. > > > > > > > >> In the above, where is he showing support for Bo's idea that the > > >> Intellectual level consists of purely Subjects and Objects? > > >> > > > "Consists of purely subjects and object"!!! What nonsense! > > Intellectual > > > value is the "Objective over subjective" capability. > > > > According to you Bo. Not according to Pirsig or the MoQ - see the above > > quotes from Lila's Child and whole bunch of other quotes as well. > > > > > > > However, for this to occur the S/O distinction was first to be > > established, thus "subjective" is indigenous to intellect - its > > derogatory term for all that is > > > untrustworthy. The social level knows no S/O. A true believer will > > deny that God just exists in his/her mind. > > > > > > > Yep - and they''re wrong as well no matter how strong their belief. > > > > As far as I have seen so far Bo, there is little intellectual support > > for your interpretation of the MoQ - certainly none from Pirsig. You > > rely on misinterpretation, rejection of data that doesn't fit your way > > of thinking and even go so far as to say that the originator of the MoQ > > project doesn't understand his own work.Your interpretation forces you > > to mangle the MoQ in order to satisfy your own ego - Social patterns > > undermining Intellectual patterns! > > > > > > Horse > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of > > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid > > in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly > > used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... > > Hunter S Thompson > > > > > > 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 > > 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 > 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
