Craig, Ham, All. 22 June
Craig had said: > > I wonder if there isn't a compromise between Pirsig's MoQ > > & Bo's SOL (the metaphysics of ZMM?). I liked your "Metaphysics of ZAMM", but LILA is also strewn with SOL stuff, and thanks for not calling it BOMOQ, It is an interpretations of Pirsigs metaphysics . > > Pirsig emphasizes > > static patterns of value. Bo identifies the intellectual level with > > Subjects & Objects. But what if Subjects & Objects are seen as > > static patterns of value? Doesn't this bridge the gap between the 2 > > metaphysics? Yes, yes, the SOL is all about it making the S/O a static value, it bridges gaps and reconciles differences galore. SOM stripped of its metaphysical rank - made into MOQ's highest static level - is the panacea that gives MOQ's its phenomenal explanatory power Thanks Craig, this is most promising and don't let the Great Inquisition stop you from promulgating this idea. ------------------------------ Then Ham who wrote: > Of course it does. But Bo is not contesting Pirsig's concept of > subjects and objects as "patterns of value." He's positing the > intellectual level as SOM -- a "metaphysics of duality" -- and he > ascribes this metaphysics to an evolutionary period in history. SOM stripped of its "M" - only the VALUE of the S/O distinction remaining is no metaphysics any longer. Is this your mysterious accusation of me placing "intellect" as some overarching metaphysics? > He's seduced a few others who claim that all intellectual precepts > reside in this intellectual level, which conflicts with the author's > premise that pure, undefined Quality = Reality. Your take of the MOQ is pretty weird (your way of expressing contempt?). That "intellectual precepts reside at the intellectual level" is plain and in no conflict with the Quality=Reality axiom. > Look at how he interprets the original block diagram in ZMM: > > ...in the preliminaries to diagram-drawing Quality is > > "pre-intellectual" while "intellectual" is the object > > becoming aware of subjects. > Where in Pirsig's writings, old or new, is it stated that "objects > become aware of subjects"? What New Age nonsense is this? We won't > advance metaphysics by turning existence upside down on the theory > that epistemology doesn't matter. Nor will we "transform the world" > (Obama-style) into a Quality Utopia by pretending that subjects and > objects don't exist. The "object becoming aware of subjects" was a slip of tongue, with my output I would be superhuman not to goof from time to time. So please give me a break. At least ZAMM's above stands firm. The introducing 3 levels before intellect makes no difference. > In my opinion, any philosophy that cannot accommodate experiential > reality is meaningless, much less worth debating. Sadly, I'm > beginning to realize that no interpretation of the MoQ will lead us to > the great enlightenment that its author anticipated. We know that you think the MOQ worthless, my comfort is that you also find the SOL incomprehensible. That fits. 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
