[MD] Sobjectivism

[skutvik at online.no]

David M.

On 14 Jan. you wrote:

> I think Scott's point is that intellect has a
> place at the DQ table rather than putting
> DQ on the 4th level as the levels are
> all about SQ are they not?

Maybe "intellect" has some deeper meaning (to Scott and you) 
than "the intellectual level", but the latter is static and I can't for 
the life of me understand why it's should be seen otherwise. All 
ills stems from the dynamic definition that Pirsig himself began 
by calling it an exact equivalent of mind. Now, it was really the 
other way round "mind an ..of the intellectual level", maybe some 
subtle difference is hidden there?

You also commented another of my posts  (where I called 
"everything in/by consciousness" as SOMish) by this:      

> Everything begins with experience. This implies awareness
> and the world that we are aware of. But it is one reality: experience. So
> there is no seperate consciousness or subject or object possible on their
> own in reality, just this one reality that is
> awareness-of-what-we-are-aware-of. 

I am not sure if this is profound wisdom or drivel, you heap it on 
so thickly. However the chief MOQ axiom is that 
Experience=Quality, but it does not mean that the human 
consciousness is (all of)  experience. You know the very idea of 
the MOQ is that there are levels of experience.   

> So awareness includes the experienced
> world all at once. When it is not experienced (shut your eyes) where is
> it?  

If you mean the visual sense there are other senses left, but I 
guess you mean sense deprivation or "unconsciousness".  

> Now the idea of an independ world can be postulated from 
experience
> due to the evidence of experience (plus a bit of reasoning). We find that
> something we can call the separate world changes in our experience so that
> our experiences changes from one bit of it to another. Some bits enter,
> some bits leave, some bits come back -we theorise. We have to postulate
> the world because we can experience only a part of it at a 'time'. We have
> the ideaof the 'world' to explain the changingness or DQ of experience.
> Got it?

Is it my statement: 

> > I hoped that you were out to correct Gav for this SOM -based
> > nonsense about everything existing through consciousness (in
> > our minds),

.... you argue against? And that you mean that the world only 
exists in our mind(s)?

I must make this clear first.

Bo 

 




> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <skutvik at online.no>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Sobjectivism
> 
> 
> > Hi Mike. 
> > 
> > On 11 Jan. you wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Bo,
> > 
> >> I have to wonder if somewhere in this post you skimmed over the
> >> word "sobjective" and read it as "subjective". In any case, I think
> >> you've misunderstood me.
> > 
> >> > > Ian and I have been bandying around the term "new-objectivity"
> >> > > to describe the objective fact of the subject's participation
> >> > > in Quality / reality. It occured to me that it could just as
> >> > > accurately be termed "new-subjectivity", i.e. the objective
> >> > > fact that reality is inextricably linked to consciousness and
> >> > > the subject.
> > 
> >> > Why not just the S/O distinction?
> > 
> >> Because I'm not talking about the 4th level. I'm talking about
> >> Quality itself. Hence the "sobject", from which the subject and the
> >> object are later separated out by the intellect.
> > 
> > Yes, I obviously missed your point - particularly this one: " To
> > describe the objective fact of the subject's participation in
> > Quality/reality.." 
> > 
> > But now you have shifted to the SELF puzzle. Who/what does the
> > valuation and determines at what level our experience/focus is to be
> > at any moment. Why an ache makes us "drop" to the
> > biological-sensational level, or why love switches our focus to the
> > social-emotional one ...etc. 
> > 
> > Or maybe you mean what in its time made the biological level 
> > emerge from the inorganic, the social from the biological and the
> > intellectual from the social? Your "...sobject from which the
> > subject and object are later separated out by intellect" indicates
> > this latter interpretation. 
> > 
> >> Yeah, yeah. The thing to realise is that intellectualisation
> >> (distinguishing between S and O) is an experience too. 
> > 
> > Profound agreement.
> > 
> >> On another
> >> thread Scott is berating Gav for excluding "thought" from Quality
> >> experience, righly pointing out that this is a regression.
> >> Intellect needs to be integrated into the way in which we conceive
> >> DQ.
> > 
> > To Scott the intellectual level means thinking or mind and is just
> > another name for DQ, exactly what I have been trying to save the MOQ
> > from with my SOL idea that the 4th level is the more mundane value
> > of the S/O distinction. There are some grand concepts that cannot be
> > integrated into the MOQ without wrecking it.*) "Thinking", "Mind",
> > "Consciousness" (there are more and if you had been around as long
> > as I you would have remembered how many alternatives that have been
> > suggested up through the years)  all could have served as the
> > groundstuff of reality and resulted in MOT, MOM, MOC ... but Quality
> > is the mother of them all!      
> > 
> > *) I don't mean these terms to be erased from language, we may
> > continue to speak of "in my mind" and "conscious of" ...etc, but
> > metaphysically they can't be used.
> > 
> >> I follow Scott in recognising consciousness as another word for
> >> Quality. However, to do this we need to distinguish between
> >> "consciousness" and "self-consciousness" - the latter, of course,
> >> means the consciousness of oneself as a subject (in a world of
> >> objects) and therefore does not arise until the 4th level.
> > 
> > See, here you are in full swing with developing a Metaphysics of
> > Consciousness.  Drop Scott, he is the great "obfuscator" of this
> > site.
> > 
> > Bo
> > 
> > 
> > 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/
> >
> 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/
> 
>