Mary, DMB and All. 24 May. :
DMB had said: > > The intellect can produce any number of metaphysical systems. SOM > > and the MOQ are two such systems and they can hang next to countless > > other... Mary Replied: > > Yes. 'Any number' of systems. All of them involve a subject > > thinking about an object. All are included. None are left out. Intellect - the Q level - can NOT produce any number of metaphysical systems, it is the S/O tap-root from which many off-shoots have grown. For instance the mind/matter one which has spawned the academical distinction between humanities and sciences and philosophy belongs to the former category and philosophy certainly can - and has produced countless "systems". None of these need carry an explicit S/O stamp, but the overarching presupposition is that all are subjective theories about a reality "out there". So we see that DMB and the fundamentalists don't rgard the 4th level as the S/O distinction, but as its subjective part. And now we understand the juggernaut that Pirsig was up against in constructing a system which was supposed to de-arm SOM by making it a subsystem of its own. He started out correctly with the "no one can avoid metaphysics" opening which went straight at the tap-root, but then took the fatal turn with the "metaphysics a ten thousand word menu ..." and by this the MOQ became another Aristotelian "metaphysics" i.e. a theory about reality, and did not get off the ground. Regarding Mary's I think it fits nicely: The presupposition of DMB is that "intellect" is the subjective mind thinking about the objective world. As not to give DMB a chance to delete and find some harmless issue I stop here. Bodvar > > dmb says: > > > > All metaphysical systems involve subjects thinking about objects? > > Again, you have inflated SOM way beyond its actual meaning. Again, > > the problem is this notion that subject and object are two entirely > > different kinds of entities. But you and Bo seem to think the > > problem is thinking itself. If there are thoughts, then there is a > > mind and mind is the subject so, you conclude, anybody who ever had > > a thought about anything has committed themselves to SOM. Or to put > > it another way, you and Bo think there is no such thing as thinking > > without SOM. > > > [Mary Replies] > I would put it more like this: Without entering an extraordinary > meditative state, there is no thinking without Subject-Object Logic. > We can't help doing it. I differ a bit from Bo, I think. SOL is the > way we think and SOM is the evolutionary culmination of that kind of > thought known as the Intellectual Level. If the question is what > distinguishes the Intellectual Level from the Social, then you cannot > say it is symbol manipulation nor can you say it is thinking itself. > These definitions are too broad by far. They explain nothing and > distinguish nothing. > > > I'm trying to be patient and polite about this, but damn! I really > > think you don't understand what the problem is. Rejecting SOM means > > rejecting a certain conception of "mind" but it is not opposed to > > thinking or thoughts. A philosophy that's against thinking? How > > pointless would that be? > > > [Mary Replies] > And I have to admit to a certain level of frustration when > communicating with you on this. ;-) > > Though it is certainly possible to grasp certain aspects of the MoQ > without accepting a SOM-from-SOL premise, it is to lose the enormity > of the MoQ's power to do so and leaves the Intellectual Level so vague > as to be irrelevant. > > There are many ways to come to the MoQ. Many 'levels' by which it may > be understood. In my view, you have latched onto one that is > incomplete. Ultimately, the logic of the MoQ describes a harmonious > circle while your conception describes a straight line. > > > Mary Replied: > > What was the Buddha thinking about under the tree? Is the East > > really so different? > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > Again, it seems there is an unstated premise here. You say the East > > is not different to imply that they suffer from SOM just like we do > > here in the West. Is that the idea? And you ask about what the > > Buddha was thinking because you think that thinking is what defines > > SOM. Again, the point of being opposed to subject-object dualism is > > not to condemn thinking but rather to dispute a certain conception > > of mind. > > > [Mary Replies] > I do not think Bo equates SOM with thinking itself, quite the > contrary, and I certainly do not. SOM is a particular attitudinal > shift that did not always exist. It is a very powerful one and we can > see evidence everywhere that it works - up to a point. It is a high > Quality construction. If you are going to examine what distinguishes > the Intellectual Level from the Social, you must assert something that > is actually different from the Social; otherwise, what is the need for > an Intellectual Level at all? > > As far as unstated premises, yes, certainly. What I see in the MoQ is > not amenable to sound bites. > > What might be helpful is for you to examine your own unstated > premises. I say this not in a negative way, but because I understand > you are engaged in writing a thesis on the subject. I think it would > be a mistake for you to plunge into that without being open to all > views. Do you know that those of us who disagree with you from time > to time are really trying to help you? > > > > > For example, in the first of the essays in radical empiricism is > > titled "Does Consciousness Exist?". The answer James gives is "no", > > not if consciousness is conceived as a distinct entity or thing as > > Descartes said. Instead, James says, consciousness is a function > > within experience. It's not a thing. It is a process or function and > > it is NOT an ontologically distinct reality. > > > > That is why Bo freaks out over the idea that the MOQ is just a set > > of ideas. If it is an idea, he figures, then it can only exist in > > the mind and the mind can only ever be the subjective half of SOM. > > But this is very bad reasoning and it is based on a major > > misconception of the problem, a inflated idea of what he Cartesian > > subject is and so of course the solution (MOQ) doesn't make much > > sense either. > > > [Mary Replies] > No. Your characterization of Bo is incorrect. But it is not my place > to say so. It is Bo's. > > > And it's not quite relevant to this point, but haven't you noticed > > how Pirsig's central concept (DQ) plays almost no role in Bo's > > theory? If the problem (SOM), the solution (MOQ) and the mystical > > nature of his central term (DQ) are all misunderstood then there is > > basically no chance that this theory is worth anything at all. > > Honestly, I can't think of anything about Pirsig's work that is > > properly understood by Bo. > > > [Mary Replies] > No. Quite the contrary. What I see is that DQ plays no role in your > theory. Instead, you appear to be obsessed with comparing Pirsig with > those who have gone before when what is extraordinary about Pirsig is > the way he has transcended them. You are making the mistake of the > anthropologists Pirsig decried; engaged upon a Ruth Benedict type > deconstruction of your subject, and if you don't step back your Ph.D. > thesis will surely reflect this same lack of Quality. > > > I see you as a victim here, Mary. If you came here to better > > understand the MOQ, I'd suggest you stop listening to Bo. On the > > other hand, how in the world do you figure such opinions can > > outweigh all the scholars of pragmatism that I've quoted on this > > topic? Isn't is wildly unreasonable to dismiss Pirsig and a whole > > pack of professionals? I think so. If Bo had just one competent > > thinker on his side, it might be possible to make a case that the > > issue is debatable. But he doesn't and it isn't. > > > > > [Mary Replies] > I am not a victim of Bo any more than a victim of anyone else who > posts here. I read as many as I have time for. No offense to Bo > intended, but I find many of his posts murky and incomprehensible and > attribute this to a language barrier. I do see many similarities > between my thinking and his, but also areas where we disagree. I'm > sure he and I will explore these in time. > > In a broad, general way (which is admittedly never the best way to do > these things) what I see in your writing is a lack of acknowledgement > that the MoQ is most powerful when understood as a melding of Eastern > and Western thought. You seem completely focused on the Western > aspects to the exclusion of all else, when the Western aspects are > actually the least interesting. I find it extraordinary that I > receive the most flack for my views from a Westerner, when Pirsig > himself feared the approbation of the Eastern Mystics far more. This > is almost funny, and I think Pirsig gets the joke. > > > Best, > Mary > > 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
