Hi Dan Thanks that is exactly my philosophical point, subject and object is fine once we cut off from their ontological and metaphysical pretensions, obviously we would be failing to do that if we start using metaphysical words like idealism and materialism as substitutes for subject and object, I think this is my problem with what you say below and I am very surprised you seem to want to do this. Don't you think these terms (idealism and materialism ) should be avoided? I understand subject and object is almost impossible to avoid which makes life difficult, in some ways not avoiding them completely seems a tactical error as the metaphysical roots are so deep and very hard to shift, but there is no going back for Pirsig now, once you get the MOQ, mentioning the subject object distinction is fine but for me idealism and materialism are just SOM ripped into 2. I hope you see my point here. And yes once we switch to MOQ metaphysics and ontology we then focus correctly on values.
All the best, may thanks for excellent Lila's child quote. David Morey Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello everyone > >On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:58 PM, David Morey <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Dan >> >> >> You said: >> This seems interesting to me in that Robert Pirsig uses his MOQ to marry >> idealism and >> materialism. >> >> >> DM: Interesting, does he 'marry' them, how does he do that, where do >> materialism >> and idealism fit into the MOQ? > > >Dan: >I think this statement might be helpful: > >"Yes, it’s clear I’ve been of two minds on whether subjects and objects >should be included in the MOQ. My earlier view, when I was concentrating on >the confusion of subject-object thinking, was to get rid of them entirely >to help clarify things. Later I began to see it’s not necessary to get rid >of them because the MOQ can encase them neatly within its structure—the >upper two levels being subjective, and the lower two, objective. Still >later I saw that the subject-object distinction is very useful for sharply >distinguishing between biological and social levels. > >"If I had been more careful in my editing, I would have eliminated or >modified the earlier statements to bring them into agreement with the >latter ones. However I missed these and it’s valuable that the Lila Squad >has caught them. The main danger to the MOQ from subject/object thinking at >present seems to be when it tries in a conventional way to encase values >and declare them to be either objects or thoughts. That was the attempt of >the professors in Bozeman in ZMM that started this whole MOQ. > >"At present, I don’t see that the terms “subject” and “object” need to be >dropped, as long as we remember they are just levels of value, not >expressions of independent scientific reality." [Robert Pirsig, Lila's >Child] > > > >> I thought materialism and idealism are two offshoots >> of SOM, two forms of metaphysics derived from SOM as offshoots, should not >> MOQ >> philosophy reject idealism and materialism as metaphysical ideas? Do you >> see it >> otherwise? Just trying to understand your understanding of the MOQ and on >> what >> justification, reason or values. >> > >Dan: >They are useful in their own limited ways. The way I understand it, the MOQ >does not reject idealism and materialism but rather encompasses them in a >more expansive understanding. > >Thank you, > >Dan > >http://www.danglover.com >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
