This link might have been a bette one to start with as it gets to the heart of your questions about different sphere's or modal aspects to reality, and how they are related. http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/aspects.html
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
