On 14 Jul 2000, at 11:47, Bobby Dillon wrote:
> Bodvar and everyone,
> You wrote
> >I browsed the "menu", but found that the
> >SOM recipe had been used always - again: not that I knew about
> >any subject-object metaphysics, yet, now looking back I see that it
> >was my discontent.
> [Bobby]You have the hallmarks of an explorer - a deep seated
> discontent. All you have to do is beware of self-satisfaction, and
> constantly expand your horizons. For a true explorer there can only be
> peace in restlessness and an harmony in motion. So you should set sail
> for other shores and I am sure you will find many treasures.(I mean a
> cross-cultural comparison of values that Pirsig suggests )
Bobby and Foci.
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I want to explore, but we seem to
be stuck in the "equipment" phase, always doubting our gear.
> >So I sort of disagree with Pirsig that there is no "food" with the
> >menu, and with you Bobby that you have to go home to make it. The
> >underlaying metaphysical food we are force-fed in our younger days is
> >with us wherever we go. And the SOM gave me - at least - bad
> >digestion.
> Metaphysics (of any kind) is always only a framework to provide
> meaning to our experiences (food ), and Pirsigs warning will ALWAYS be
> valid until we can find a way to communicate our experiences DIRECTLY
> - which I doubt is ever possible. Especially so when we are force-fed
> with the same recepies and not allowed (or given the kitchen space )
> to try our our own recepies. So we keep eating the same food again and
> again till some of us feel sick of it all , and even prefer to go
> hungry at times.
This view I contest most vehemently. "Only a framework...just a
theory...etc. No, a metaphysics in the grandiose sense as I have
come to understand the SOM/MOQ difference IS the food itself.
This is what its chief axiom (Quality=Reality) says - will we never
grasp that single point? know it can be said that "reality" is divided
into DQ/SQ, but I can't for the life of me understand what is outside
Dynamic Value (if we accept the MOQ that is)
You seem to hold the notion of an "objective" experience that
various metaphysics may be measured against, something like
classic physics' "ether" that the speed of light could be measured
against. To the shock of all science it proved not tenable: The
speed of light was the fixed quantity which determined the other
measurement. The whole thing was turned inside-out. And even to-
day few grasp the Relativity Theory.
I have compared the MOQ and Relativity (find it better than
Quantum Physics) and like Einstein's idea Pirsig will notoriously
be tried dragged down to classical ground. You know the warped
space concept? Warped compared to what straight space? There
is no bridge between the two physics except a set of equations
(Lorenz' transformation). The physicists couldn't care less because
Relativity works perfectly ...when great precision is needed!!!!!!. This
goes for the MOQ too. Never before has anyone worked out a
metaphysics that has has taken farewell to the "classic" SOM*
(see footnote), but surely people will start "comparative studies"
and end up in frustration.
What is needed is some transformation procedure. Pirsig provided
the Inorganic+Organic=Object(ive), Social+Intellect=Subject(ive), I
have tried to sell my SOLAQI that says that the S/O split is
Intellect itself.
> >"...useful for society"? Is that moq's Social Level"? No, I guess you
> >mean (Western) Civilization and its values - Christian values as they
> >usually add here when this issue is raised. What can devour it except
> >for despotism and again my SOL-idea is fortified; Only social value
> >can corrupt intellectual value and as despotism is social value
> >refined .... (our) civilization is equal to the Intellectual level.
> No I don't mean Western Civilization alone. The same malaise is
> widespread all over the world . Societies in China and Japan are have
> strong undercurrents of discontent and in countries like India and
> Pakistan there is a near collapse of values and morals. The west has
> positive intellectual values but these are mired in excessive
> rationality ,and more significantly the structure of these values has
> dangerous faultlines.
This is too general a statement. The Mohammedans (of Pakistan
and India) have their values fixed by the Koran - much like the Bible
once to the Western world - and are far from collapse. The
discontent of societies in China and Japan is because they feel
that Western "values" are undermining their own culture. This
Intellect vs Society struggle has been going on for ages now.
> >The very point I made above. Hitler's despotism was social value's
> >last stand in Europe and thus he was evil compared to Einstein. I
> >don't mean E's scientific achivement, but as an intellectual value
> >representative.
> I still insist that lack of "moral force" leads to despotism and not
> the other way round.The "moral force " comes before and not after-
> Pirsig is also quite clear about this.
> >"Everything dynamic necessarily DQ"?. I wish you would provide
> >examples.
> The rise and fall of the third reich is itself an example of a dynamic
> process lacking Quality that was inherently unsustainable - even
> Hitler had enough dynamic intellegence to forsee its unsustainability
> - he himself predicted years before he seized power that an attack on
> Russia would also mean an end to Germany. When in power he became
> blinded by his own despotic self-importance and took a cheap shot just
> so that he could bring the World to its knees before him , even if it
> was for a brief moment of self glory. Where does despotic
> self-importance come from ? - primarily from a lack of "moral force".
> Therefore anything dynamic lacking Quality cannot sustain because it
> is without Dynamic Quality. This will manifest as invisible faultlines
> in the structure of static patterns.
Thanks for the example, but I'm afraid this is a complete
misunderstanding of the MOQ. It says nothing about each level
looking "good" to the one above. To the contrary: IT IS EVIL
ITSELF. Fascism and Nazism was twentieth century patterns of
social value's and the result was catastrophic - your rendering of
the event is correct enough, but that's seen from Intellect. Social
value doesn't care about individual life, but it is the next safe latch
that existence rely on should Intellect fail.
Bringing worlds to knees...bringing all under one ruler, one belief is
the goal of Social Value forever ...and was expressed by despots
during the ages, but there is reciprocity here. The individual
resigning responsibility to a leader who assumes the role of the
collective WILL. Anyway, the Intellect won't have anything of this
and speaks of self-importance, power-delusion or madness;
psychoanalyzing it, making it sound like an "illness".
> >I am very interested in what similar metaphysics you mean. Pirsig
> >speaks of the quality idea as the oldest one there is, is it
> >something along those lines?
>
> Most others are Metaphysics of Reality.
> Reality can be defined as the sum total of all the events that take
> place in the Universe. Quality is a subset of Reality - that is the
> sum of all Quality events. Quality is the timeless essence - what most
> cultures call Soul. Existence in the form of individual selfs is for
> the purpose of the refinement or progression of individual souls or in
> other words for the individual to Create Quality.
Reality is Quality in the MOQ and no subset.
> In most other cultures instead of metaphysically dividing
> Soul(Quality), which many cultures feel should be left indivisible,
> instead Reality is metaphysically split into two counterparts :
> ANIMATE or SPIRIT & INANIMATE or MATTER
> These can also be termed as Dynamic Reality & Static Reality.
> Since Quality is a subset of Reality, I will leave it to you figure
> out the relationships between the respective counterparts.
The mind/matter division is SOM through and through and if you
think that Dynamic/Static Quality is another round of that you are
on the same track as told above. I mean, it's perfectly OK to say
that the MOQ is nonsense, but it can't be "compared". That is it's
force and weakness. I see that good people works on such studies
and I admire them, but it's futile ......in my - um - humble opinion.
Not as self-satisfied as I sound :-).
Bo
*)
The only other true anti-SOMist (that I know of) is Charles Peirce.
His semiosis (sign) metaphysics is uncannily like the first trinity
(ZAMM) version of the MOQ.
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
