Hi again
> My point, as always, is that there exists a psychic entitity that is
> identified with every individual and by which everything in existence is
> made aware. The mind, whether you acknowledge it or not, is the subjective
> half of experience which, according to Pirsig, is responsible for the world
> as we know it. It's as obvious to me as it is to Bo that proprietary human
> consciousness and its intellectual function is either missing or
> repositioned in the MoQ heirarchy, implying that awareness itself is a
> figment of Quality's imagination. Pirsig's philosophy gives no credit to
> human beings for inventing ideas, theories, moral systems, or works of art.
> All of these faculties are treated as a part of some bio-social principle of
> which man is only an evolved 'subset'.
>
> I see this is a huge philosophical oversight. Instead of explaining the
> logic of the primary division, the MoQ refuses to recognize it. This
> doesn't "overcome" subject-object duality (if that's its intended goal); it
> simply positions conscious awareness on the objective side, and we end up
> with a reality that is totally other, leaving the individual hanging in
> limbo. As a consequence, any concept of individualism is rendered fictional
> or "egotistical", as if the human ego is a low-quality vestige of the past,
> along with religion and spirituality.
Ok, I'm beginning to see where this is heading. We've been here many times
before and it always ends in failure when one tries to interpret a whole
different system of thought in terms of another one. I'm sure Pirsig mentions
this in both ZMM and Lila.
You say "Instead of explaining the logic of the primary division, the MoQ
refuses to recognize it". But the primary division is not the same in SOM and
MoQ. The primary division in SOM is the subject/object, but in MoQ it's
static/dynamic. What Pirsig tells us is that we have to let go of the
subject/object division in order to better understand the world, because if we
use the s/o division as the primary division, it gives us hell further down the
road. The intended goal of the MoQ is not to overcome the S/O duality, it's to
overcome the contradictions it entails.
> I couldn't distinguish a qubit from a quantum, not that I care. One is as
> "uncertain" as the other. There will always be uncertainty in life -- it's
> a built-in factor of man's freedom. The goal of philosophy has always been
> to achieve wisdom, not certainty. But so long as philosophers hang on the
> coat-tails of scientific materialists, they will never come up with an
> epistemology that relates proprietary awareness to the experienced world.
> And this, it seems to me, is where contemporary philosophy should be
> heading.
Philosophers have been pounding this question for millennia without success, so
why not get new clues from science? It might tell us something. Perhaps you
should care more about it as well?
Magnus
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/
