Hi DMB, Almost a week and no response. I would like you, the thesis writer, to tell me what the difference is between the Intellectual Level and the Social. Save me from being 'victimized' by Bo.
Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 7:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: 'Mary' > Subject: RE: [MD] Reading & Comprehension > > Hi DMB and Bo by reference, > > > dmb 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. > > > > 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
