[MD] A Spin-off of Objectivity, Intellectual activity, From each... to each, and now... call it what you will

[Heather Perella]

Hello All,

     This is a quote from a link Arlo gave in his
posting in [MD] Objectivity by Donald T Palmgren which
Donald said:  "SOM indicates a system built on the
EXCLUSIVITY of S and O (the knowewr and the known
(consciously or otherwise). But "Idealism" is
spicifically defined as a system recognizing the
IDENTITY of S and O.  This gets a bad reaction because
several people in the LS take this to mean
MoQ=Idealism. NO! What I'm saying is MoQ is a TYPE OF
Idealism; I'm not saying that all Idealist systems are
the same. Obviously Zen is different from Kantian
Formalism which is different from Hinduism which is
different from MoQ, etc. They all have the similarity
that they say S and O are actually the same thing.
What this thing turns out to be, however, (the Tao,
Kant's "Moral Self," Braman or Anatman ["no-self"],
Hegel's "Spirit" or Pirsig's Quality) varies
tremendosly from one system to another. Of corse
Pirsig's idea is not the same as everyone elses... but
it fit's a general type...
     ...Now this is a standerd way to look at
Idealism, but I hope by now that you're all awfully
suspicious. You can see that in my traditional
grouping, I've included a lot of things in "Idealism"
(a sub-set of metaphysics) that arn't even
metaphysical sysetems -- are not philosophical
activities. Taoism, Zen, Vedanta Hinduism... these 
aren't scholarly, literary activities. They're not
opposed to SOM (an 
explaination about the world); they're opposed to SOC
(an actual 
psychological experience of the world)."

     To comment on this could take some time.  Let's
see.

     Ok, SOM is "...EXCLUSIVITY of S and O (the knower
and the known (consciously or otherwise)." and "...
(an explaination about the world)..."
     And also, SOC is "...(an actual psychological
experience of the world)." and "...(sub-ob.
consctiousness -- which is this very ability)..." and
"MoQ actualy has nothing to do w/ SOC, or else we'd
have to judge 
it a total failure, because nobody's ever reached
Nirvana by reading 
LILA. MoQ is a metaphysical system; one that's
contraposed to "SOM," a 
type of metaphysical system. Is the MoQ the only
system that stands 
outside SOM? I don't think so." 
     This too, MOQ is "What I'm saying is MoQ is a
TYPE OF Idealism; I'm 
not saying that all Idealist systems are the same."
and "But "Idealism" is specifically defined as a
system recognizing the IDENTITY of S and O."

     Let me see if I can come up with parallels or
holes where events are missing in the above static
quality or intellectual contemplation.
     I looked up the word contraposed (quoted above)
and actually the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
linked me to the actual word that I think Donald
intended which is counterpose and here is the
definition as follows:  

Main Entry: coun·ter·pose 
Pronunciation: "kaun-t&r-'pOz
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: counter- + -pose (as in compose)
: to place in opposition, contrast, or equilibrium
<counterpose a positive view to the negative
assessment>

     By this definition then MOQ is in contrast to
SOM, I think we all heard that many times.  MOQ does
not put the knower and known into exclusive
categories.  This is why Ham recognizes morals, but
doesn't recognize morals.  Ham would say morals are
created by society/culture.  The universe is not a
moral universe inherently, Ham would say.  I say since
culture has morals the universe has morals.  Ham would
see a contrast with this statement.  I see agreement
in this statement.  Why do I?  Since we cannot rid our
cultural perspective and culture also puts morals into
the universe (so to speak) then I see this universe
having morals because we, as a society, made the
universe this way.  I also would say the universe
gives us morals.  Why?  Without them how could we
socially exist?  Thus, the universe with humans and a
universe that has humans is a universe that needs to
have morals so humans can be intellectual and have
cultures that currently exist.  Thus, for me, since
morals cannot be taken out of the equation therefore I
view morals not only human made, but a must in the
universe for humans to exist.  
     Could humans have made morals to adapt to the
universe?  Yes.  Could morals be therefore only a
human concept to adapt to a universe that recognizes
no morals and we had to make them to exist here in
this universe?  Yes, and since we culturally have made
morals, morals have become a mainstay, a permanent
fixture in this universe.  This is why I say this
universe is moral and has moralities.  Is it because I
say so?  Yes, but that goes well beyond just me saying
so.  A moral universe is something this universe has
to accept and have a place for, or else we could not
perform morality in our acts.  And by this last
statement I have left the SOM world behind and crossed
over into a metaphysics that does not separate subject
and object, but makes them necessarily dependent upon
each other - Interdependance.
     
     This interdependance needs to be tackled next or
at least that's where more of the quotes above come
into play.  "Taoism, Zen, Vedanta Hinduism... these
aren't scholarly, literary activities. They're not
opposed to SOM (an explanation about the world);
they're opposed to SOC (an actual psychological
experience of the world)."  According to what Donald
was saying is that Zen (I focus on this since ZZM
includes Zen in the title) is not opposed to SOM. 
Yet, MOQ is opposed to SOM.  Why use Zen in the title
of a metaphysics that is opposed to Zen?  I'll come
back to this.
     Also, MOQ is according to Donald an idealist
metaphysics which does recognize the identity of
subjects and objects, but is counterposed to SOM.  MOQ
can recognize subjects and objects as Donald states
above by saying subjects and objects are the same -
this is the idealist position Donald says.  What this
sameness is called has been discussed by other
philosophers "the Tao... Hegel's Spirit... Pirsig's
Quality..."
     As Donald has said above:  "...Now this is a
standard way to look at Idealism, but I hope by now
that you're all awfully suspicious."  Why be
suspicious?  Donald says Zen and Dao (Tao) are not
metaphysics, thus, not a philosophy.  Zen and Dao also
do not oppose SOM, but do oppose SOC which is an
actual psychological experience of the world.  My
question about all of this is this.  Since Zen is not
opposed to SOM and MOQ is opposed to SOM, yet, Zen is
opposed to SOC and MOQ is not opposed to SOC all
according to the comments by Donald then Zen and Dao
seem to contrast MOQ, except for his comment that Dao
(I assume Zen, too) are traditionally grouped with
Pirsig's Quality as idealists philosophies, because a
conclusion they both come to is subject and object are
the same.
     This comes back to 'interdependence' that I
mentioned earlier.  This sameness is what I notice as
also being called interdependence.  When subject and
object are interdependent upon each other what I mean
is that being an idealist I recognize the identity of
subject and object, but that identity of the two -
together, yes, the two being together in the same
universe - is what Pirsig would call Quality or Daoist
would call Dao or the Way.  According to Donald how
Pirsig, Daoist, and Zen master come to this same
conclusion even though Zen recognizes SOM is by Zen
rejecting the consciousness of this apparent SOM that
exists.  Pirsig comes from another angle and rejects
SOM but does recognize subjects and objects.  Pirsig
attempts to be conscious (because as Donald says MOQ
is not interested in SOC) of subjects and objects, but
not in a SOM.  Pirsig is conscious of subjects and
objects by the identity of the two together which he
calls Quality.
     Why did Donald mention that Dao also does what
Quality does, even though Dao and Quality approach
this understanding from different angles?  Why do
"They all have the similarity that they say S and O
are actually the same thing."  On an intellectual
level I would say it is Dharma.  With these different
approaches we come to the same conclusion due to the
underlying 'way that it is' or 'reality' that is here.
 Why does SOM differ from the idealist?  I would say
that the idealist notices subjects and objects but
does not separate them 'eternally'.  The idealist does
not forgot that the subject and object are in the same
universe, therefore, what the subject may say at any
given point in time, and what the object (data) have
to say at any given point in time - it is that both
subject and object are saying what they say in the
form of words or data in the same universe.  It is
this same universe that the idealist notices.  The
idealist notices that subjects and objects are in the
same universe.  Does the subject and/or object 'speak'
about this same universe similarly all the time? 
Obviously no.  Is the subject and/or object more
correct than the other?  No.  Sometimes subject needs
to theorize more to understand object and sometimes
objects need to be found to eventually support
subjects theory.  It is a similarity, the intent of
reason from long ago in ancient Greece and arguably
from other parts of the world, too.  Reason/intellect
are an exercise to know the world.  To have the human
mind/brain/intellect/reason understand and find
similarity with the object or rest of universe aside
from human intellect.  Also, it is the world that is
providing this knowing of itself to us if we so choose
to intellectualize and find similarity in our
intellect and the universe.  Thus, when I go into my
intellect I would like to see in my intellect an
understanding about the world that, to me, is the
world.  Thus, when I think about the world I want my
thinking to be as the world is.  When I go into the
universe (whether from birth or in contemplation) I
would like to see in the universe an understanding
about my intellect that, to me, is that the universe
is the way it is like this - meaning the universe is
such and such this way and I have gone into
contemplation seeing a reality that is the universe. 
The intellect and universe match-up and are the same. 
They are similar.  This is what my effort is when I do
metaphysics.
     Is the universe a separation of subjects and
objects, thus, a SOM would understand this separation
that is the real reality?  I do know, but what I do
know is when I look at the universe I notice not just
myself, but birds and mice, too.  Thus, I don't stick
with a SOM.  I can notice my thoughts in this
universe, too.  Even if my thoughts are incorrect
about the universe, these incorrect thoughts occured
in this universe.  Thus, the way I not only see, but
fully experience the universe is as universe that has
subjects and objects in it.  When these subjects and
objects are intellectualizing a bridge is trying to
form.  This action is intellectualizing.  It is to
have subject notice real object and object be really
of what subject, in other words, subject and object
joining and on the intellectual level that joining
together to be of the same universe is to reason-out,
understand, and intellectualize what the universe is
in all nooks and crannies, and this universe will be
similar, yet, not taking away diversity, but similar
in that the  'way it is' matches up and we understand
'it is this way' and 'that way', too if need be.  We
can talk about it and know that what we discuss is the
same universe.
     This is how I see Zen to be in the title of
Pirsig's book ZMM.   


Thanks,
SA     
 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com