John C, Kenneth V, Jonathan, Struan (mentioned) and MD.
John said:
> I have been following this discussion for some time now. And I find
> your comments to be right on the mark. Metaphysical speculation tends
> to become simplified generalizations of universal proportions. The
> global assertions such as all is Quality really don't tell us
> anything. Don't get me wrong I am actually quite sympathetic to
> Pirsig's ideas. However to toss in memes and evolution and
> what-have-you without any methodological rigor is ill-founded (in my
> view).
Thanks for the �right on� words John, but do I deserve it :-? You
see, Pirsig�s global (universal!) assertion that all is Quality tells me
a lot, but his effort to underpin the Value claim by the money and
stock market examples will probably not make the slightest dent in
the subject-object bulwark as demonstrated by Struan Hellier.
JONATHAN wrote:
> IMO, Bodvar's biggest mistake is in assuming that by coming up with
> the name "Subject-Object Metaphysics", Pirsig is the first to
> recognise the phenomenon. As DAVID PRINCE so aptly reminds us: >So the
> point of that {Zen koan] exercise is the >understanding that words do
> not contain >all the data. . . . Pirsig is certainly entitled to
> create a terminology and a hierarchy, following from the great master
> of that technique, Aristotle [Bo, that was intended to shock you].
> However, the value is not in the name (SOM - uniquely Pirsigian), but
> in the concept (ubiquitous).
Thanks for speaking to me Jonathan. I agree to have a special view
of the SOM something that springs from a special view of the
MOQ. If you think that several thinkers have spotted a subject-
object metaphysics - and found the antidote - it's no wonder you
find my making mistakes. However the "Quality" that many speaks
about I hardly find different from a more obscure SOM. Read on to
find out why.
The Quality idea is different, so different that it really CAN'T be
adopted ...from a SOM p.o.v. (you know my position here) and I
have come to understand that the SOM has a subtler line of
defence than the first crude materialist/idealist one and retreat
behind this moat and pull up the drawbridge, when the first line is
overrun.
An aside:
On page 65 P of LILA P. describes the various oppositions to
"metaphysics". Resistance to admit that there is a foundation
under everything (Aristotles' exercise becomes surface ripples in
this context!) and mysticism is the toughest he said. My claim that
no one has identified the true SOM before Pirsig reflects this point.
The really subtle SOM-ist will scoff at the mind/matter notion. No,
his position is rather that there is a reality about which we make
theories - one the M/M, another the MOQ. This gives us a
REALITY/theory duality which I call it subtle-objectivism. Subtle-
subjectivism follows suit saying that everything - included the
unchangeable reality, be it this or that - is theoretical which makes
for a THEORY/reality. The latter is the mysticism.
Thus the Quality Metaphysics is made into a SOM-bone of
contention. To the subtle-objectivists (Struan f.ex.) it looks like
another subjective campaign and it must be fought down. To the
subtle-subjectivists the MOQ sounds faintly familiar and they
embrace it - smother it IMO! Many who declare themselves to be
Pirsig adheres are mere subtle-subjectivists, and keep the subject-
object virus replicating itself within the MOQ.
But the MOQ is not SOM - be it ever so subtle - it is something
unheard of. I could now have gone into the various MOQ
misinterpretations that the SSOM spawns, but nobody listens to
me any longer (no fool like an old fool who don't know when his
time is up). Anyway these finer points are for the Focus forum, but
it needs a good topic.
For KENNETH
No hurt beliefs (!) or feelings, and of course Pirsig isn't mentioned
at the Memetic list, and naturally you find a lot of "solipsistic"
droppings on this site - the subtle-SOMers you know. The memes
subject was treated rather superficially by me, not that it isn't good
to see something flying so straight into the face of
subject/objectivism, but it lacks a metaphysical foundation.
Dawkins could not jeopardize his reputation understandably (Pirsig
had nothing to lose) and it automatically becomes SOMatic
solipsism.
What if the MOQ is applied? But then selfishness become value
(which it obviously is!) and the selfishness that propagate life
becomes Biological value, that which keep societies together
becomes Social value, and that which has divided existence into
subject-object becomes Intellectual value. Dawkins has no
selfishness that upholds the material world, but that is provided by
Pirsig.
Thanks for reading.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
