Hi Joe, The way I see it, is that discussion relies on the objectification of awareness. For you and I to discuss something we must exchange some idea. That idea is an abstraction. Once the exchange is made, that abstraction returns to an awareness. What seems to have happened as man develops these abstractions he confuses them for the original awareness. The abstraction is elevated to truth, and the original awareness (Quality) becomes secondary. This flip in importance results in a world as perceived through words. When Pirsig states "kill all intellectual patterns", I don't think he is proclaiming to kill all communication through objectified concepts, I think he is suggesting that we not hold on to these patterns as if they were the primary reality. Primary reality is our personal relationship with the universe, not a set of abstract rules such as Gravity.
MoQ presents the abstract concepts of DQ/sq and levels for the purposes of discussion. It is the manipulation of these concepts that can impart meaning. If meaning is found, those concepts can be discarded for they are no longer needed. So, I value the use of SOM as a tool, but once the house is built, it is put away for small repair jobs. When you state undefinable/definable I assume you mean "that which can not be exchanged through words/that which can". We each have our own limits to what we can convey in words, and such conveyance requires a willing listener. The way I see it, the undefinable is temporarily defined as best one can, and then returns to the undefinable. One should not hold on to the definition except as an analogy for it is not the real thing, but an abstraction used for communication. Pirsig "defines" Quality throughout Lila, but these are just analogies not Quality. Long live SOM as a simple tool for discourse! Mark On Nov 11, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I do not accept that the logic of SOM allows me to discuss reality. There > is no security in a reality described as existing in a real object if it is > seen as intentional existence as ideas in a mind as described in SOM. > > The SOM logic needed to verify the reality of SO proposes the need for > intentional existence in a mind. SOM is impossible to conceptualize. It is > matter of a faith in a real objective existence for substance and an > intentional existence for ideas in a mind. > > DQ/SQ on the other hand accepts evolution. I conceptualize evolution as > levels in existence. Indefinable/definable reality, becomes the logic base > of DQ/SQ describing reality in evolutionary levels. I describe evolution as > levels in existence. > > In SOM individuality is an abstraction. The conception of Free will is > confusing. In MOQ individuality follows evolution. Walk carefully through > levels in existence, evolution, in describing freewill! I see individuality > in the DQ/SQ format of levels in existence, MOQ. > > You declare that: Metaphysics of any kind must be discussed in SOM terms. > > I would rather discuss reality in existential terms of evolution like MOQ, > levels in evolution, rather than restrictive SO terms of knowledge. > Individuality as described in SOM, an intentional, objective/subjective > existence in an intellect, denies the logic to evolution, the existence of > levels in reality. > > Instincts modify reality in a car accident. > > Joe > > > On 11/10/11 11:17 PM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think that Pirsig achieved metaphysical status since he was >> discussing the nature of being. Metaphysics of any kind must be >> discussed in SOM terms. However, such discussion can point away from >> SOM, if the reader does not take the words literally, but as >> conveyances. I would not say Pirsig "accepts" evolution in four >> levels. I would say that he provided an analogy of evolution in four >> levels to help him convey his idea of Quality. These levels are as a >> constellation in the sky is. It is a way of putting meaning together >> so that others can see. There is no more Truth in these levels than >> there is in a constellation, but both can be said to exist. The power >> of rhetoric is to show others how to look at the stars so they can see >> the constellations that you see. > > > 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
