DMB, All. Bo before: > The intellectual level is either SOM or a mental vessel that contains > ideas, concepts, modes of thinking with SOM one mode and the MOQ > another, and such SOM's MIND. And if mind prevails then the MOQ turns > into a somish idealist teaching. There is no compromise between these > two positions and MOQ's future depends on all SOM's tentacles being > cut. DMB no exeption.
> dmb says: > The intellectual level is either SOM or a mental vessel that contains > ideas such as SOM's mind? Oddly, that is a false dilemma with only one > choice. Only by distorting my text the way you do. What I tried to say was that the intellectual level is either SOM itself or SOM's "mind" and in a metaphysics that rejects the mind/matter dichotomy it's unfortunate to introduce the subject because the object follows suit. > The first essay in James's radical empiricism is titled "Does > Consciousness Exist?". In this essay James answers the question in the > negative. He says there is no such vessel, no such container, no such > entity or substance. Well, why introduce mind (the conscious subject) in form of the intellectual level? > The second essay is titled "A World of Pure Experience". In this essay > James says that the subject and object are secondary, are concepts > derived from something more primary, which he calls "pure experience" > or "the immediate flux of life". Pirsig equates this immediate flux > with DQ or the primary empirical reality, as described in both ZAMM and > Lila. This looks innocent, but is a disaster. In ZAMM the pre-intellectual spawned the intellectual in the form of the subject/object aggregate (SOM) nothing about "pre-concept/conceptual".. Yes, in LILA Phaedrus revolutionary Pre-intellect/Intellect (=SOM) insight was squandered in favor of the Pre-whatever/Concepts. > In both cases, you have intellect neither a mental vessel nore SOM's > mind. According to the latest definition (that you subscribe to?) intellect is the place where symbols or concepts are manipulated, and if that isn't "mind" I don't know what is. > Consciousness is a function within experience, not a thing that > preforms the function. Ideas about the self and subjectivity are just > that; ideas. So says SOM's idealism faction too. > Ideas are derived from experience and they work to guide future > experience, which is why they seem so true, but Pirsig and James both > insist that experience comes first. The MOQ says that the inorganic, biological ...etc. levels are "derivations" of Experience (=Quality) but nothing about these levels just being "ideas". This is undiluted somish idealism. > This is important to understand, otherwise one might be tempted to > believe the impossible; that the subjective mind is derived from the > primary experience of the subjective mind. This is the MOQ's copernican > revolution, you see? Instead of quality being derived from the > interaction between subjects and objects, subjects and objects are > derived from Quality. Listen: The MOQ is supposed to be a relief from SOM where values just exists as subjective figments of our minds, objectively seen there is just a dead, valueless, material world. Instead the MOQ says that this subject/object distinction is its own highest static level. In this context the S/O is recognized for the static good it has brought, while its bleak metaphysical outlook is nullified. > Instead of experience being made possible by the interaction of > subjects and objects, subjects and objects are derived from experience. Yes, subjects and objects (the S/O distinction is Experience's 4th. static derivation. What do we bicker about? 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
