Horse (and Buggy):
>"This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms: 'mankind', 'people', 'the
>public', and even such pronouns as 'I', 'he' and 'they'. Our language is
>so organized around them and they are so convenient to use, it is
>impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like
>'substance', they can be used as long as it is remembered that
>they're terms for collections of patterns and not some independent
>reality of their own." (Pirsig, Chapter 12, Lila)
Yes, that old cow is kicked quite often. But the boots are wearing thin
and shallow - I mean this: "I" am certainly not the autonomus humunculus
existing independently of anything/one else. P is right in dispelling that
Cartesian myth. However, using the term "I" in conjunction with the tenets
of the MOQ is perfectly valid for this reason: it indicates the very real
delineation between *this "collection of pov's" versus *that "collection of
pov's". Very clearly P is aware of the differences/separation between, say,
different cultures. Well, "we" are one culture - Canadians (eh?) (spov), and
"you"(plural) are another culture - English (bloody right!) (spov). The
terms I, We, You, refer to the "collecting/cohering" aspect of pov's
(reality).
Yes, we must no longer limit the term "substance" to "matter". But that
does not mean that reality is empty - "not substantive". It is. The
"substance" of reality is "value". The beauty of this is that those aspects
of reality previously understood as "scientifically unreal" (i.e.-emotions,
thoughts...) are now as real as matter. In fact, we find matter and mind to
have a common essence! And a new, very nicely knived dualism within each
half of the dualism (add: biology and society)
> > And value/morality is interchangeable with mind/matter
> > (subject/object). So Quality is, literally, mind and matter.
>
>Whoa there! Says who? From the point of view of the MOQ this is
>completely wrong. Mind and matter are equivalent to subject and
>object and it's Quality (or to be more specific, the Quality Event)
>which _would_ create either mind or matter. But neither mind/subject
>and/or matter/object are MOQ concepts as they are superceded by
>static patterns of Value.
Don't forget that the data is unchanged. This means that the MOQ most
definitely accepts the reality of subject and object, however it greatly
clarifies just what a subject or object IS - pov's.
>You also seemed to have forgotten about
>Dynamic Quality!
No, no. I never forget about DQ. We must also remember that P is at times
insistent on a monism, other times a dualism, thursdays he prefers a
trinity, fridays a quintuplicate and some days more than one "archai" in
one chapter! And before and throughout it all, we're given an entity not
conceivable in numerical/rational terms, therefore ... transcendent?
>Many of Pirsigs ideas in ZMM are replaced by those in Lila. To a
>great extent ZMM is little more than a foreword to LIla - a pretty
>damn good forword though.
I agree... shit, gotta run - not happy with my replies, but I'll pass this
along anyways... talk to you later!
Rich
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
