Mary, All
4 Apr. Mary wrote:
> 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:.
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.
It will become too tedious to go about in the usual
commenting/analyzing style so I write a plain letter. I do not own the
(copyright of) the SOL interpretation, it is found strewn like gold
nuggets all over ZAMM and LILA and all Pirsig's writings about the
MOQ, but I have the longest "service time" with it, really since I read
ZAMM, and that is the point; In ZAMM we find the best description of
(the emergence of) SOM-as-intellect.
Your opening "thinking approach" I have doubts about, there certainly
are moments when experience is not the detached "I think therefore I
am" For instance when in pain we fuze with experience "we are the
pain". It's possible to detach oneself, but normally ...This is the
biological level. The social level is just as non-thinking , when
someone hates strongly enough - the terrorists for instance - they fuze
with the common cause and it becomes easy to sacrifice their life.
However, when at the intellectual level all existence seems to be
"thinking" in the "conscious-subject-reflecting-on-existence" sense,
there you are spot on.
In your next post you use the S/O to be everything's origin, but the
social level is characterized by its absence. When society was leading
edge (and in social-focussed cultures today) there are personhood,
names and property and every social patterns, but the subject as
removed from other individuals and from the world - the world a dead
rmaterial mass - had yet not invaded existence. It's what still lives on in
religions where rituals - sacraments - prayer can sway the force that
govern reality to yield to one's wishes. It's a magical reality.
And with the introduction of the MOQ the S/O again disappears from
the scene. the DQ/SQ constellation takes over. Will continue my
"analysis" some day soon. But again, ZAMM on SOM is the place to
understand the intellectual breakthrough that Pirsig in that book saw
as a "fall from grace", but in the MOQ context where SOM is stripped
of its metaphysical rank it assumes the role of the highest and best
static value.
Thanks Mary for your good work. That list of quotes was most useful,
each of them would convince normal people, but this discussion's
pundits are hell bent on bringing the MOQ in under the SOM. ;-)
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
