[Bo] Here you present SOM most clearly: Existence as so many isolated subjective minds with the rest their objects "out there". This going down to the cellular level and beyond - to the elementary particle level.
[Case] I am not so sure about the elementary particle level. The cells in my body have their own unique identifying code. The immune system operates by being able to discriminate cells on the basis of the code. I doubt that particles operate in this way. [Bo] Now, if we switch to the MOQ's meta-view, this is existence seen from intellect, but the point is that there are are levels below where the S/O separation doesn't apply. OK, this is regarded as "ignorance". For example: People of old did not know that the stars were separate suns, not belonging to our system. And - right - intellect IS the highest static level, yet static in the sense that it dissolves if examined closely. Phaedrus did so on the metaphysical level and the S/O separation went poof, science does on the practical (quantum) level and the same happen in the laboratories: particles "communicate" across the universe. [Case] Quantum physics seems to be one of those things that means whatever your think it means. The problem is that we are not equipped with sensory or conceptual apparatus to make much sense of it. One reason we are not so equipped is that it is irrelevant to us. By the time the physical world is manifest in a way they we can relate to all of the quantum weirdness is average out. The probabilities are resolved. In any case Pirsig does not make S/O go poof he merely moves it over a notch. [Bo] As said I compare myself with Phaedrus who at first "accepted" the mind/matter premises because he didn't know there was a SOM, yet was too rational to leave it be. He did not try to alleviate it by meditation or drugs, but charged head on, applying reason's S/O "knife" on itself. This resulted in the said "endless number of hypotheses" which in plain langue means that there is no bottom to reality. My own epiphany was something about our existence being "suspended in language", but had the same effect, it pulled the rug from under the objective reality. [Case] I really don't see how having our existence suspended in language pulls the rug out from objectivity. After all it is through symbolic manipulation that we discuss reality. It is our way of communicating about experience to ourselves and others rather than experience itself. [Bo] Most people read it that way - still do, but ZMM's real message is its "shoot-out" with SOM and the budding new moq. It might have become a Tao metaphysics, that would have been ok if only Dynamic/Static divided, I see Quality and D/S as one and the same. Pirsigs statement that it can be divided any way is wrong, a subject/object-division of Quality is indistinguishable from ordinary SOM. [Case] In my own view ZMM was a better book and expressed a better philosophy than Lila. Pirsig's confusion of Quality with DQ in Lila causes nothing but confusion and a lot of silly talk. [Bo] Yes, Pirsig also says that the static levels match the current "curriculum", but this comparison is false the various static patterns don't match SOM in any other way than SOM=the 4th. level. The said comparison is also behind his method of subsuming SOM. [Case] Taoism provides a knife for carving up all sorts of dualisms. Getting all hung up on one or two of them just stifles progress. [Bo] Nothing wrong with these deliberations, but the social level is =more than rules and regulations. Like all levels it's primary purpose is to free existence from the rigors of the former level, in societys case from the dog-eats-dog morality of the biological existence. [Case] Rules and regulations are the intellectualization of unwritten rules the unwritten rules are social. Biological existence is not simply a mater of dog eat dog. It is a matter of lots of different strategies for survival. Society is one of these means. [Bo] I doubt that you - from the intellectual level - can avoid judging the social level, but from the MOQ meta-level we can see the big picture. One thing though, cannibalism was never about (biological) nourishment, but a ritual. OK, that's my pet issue. [Case] I understand the context of many cannibal practices and while I don't wish to participate in them I do not condemn those who do. Christians practice ritual cannibalism and while I find it less disgusting it doesn't do a lot for me. If all the moq does is provide you with a new way to rationalize existing prejudices, it has not done much. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
