[MD] Crazy talk

[Michael Hamilton]

He everyone,

On 1/2/07, Laird said something quite good, which seems to have gone unremarked:
> Thinking that the MoQ is seriously opposed to SOM is a very dangerous
> road. The MoQ encompasses and tames SOM, and to some extent relies upon
> the fruits of SOM to provide strength to its argument. SOM provides an
> awful lot to our intellect and to trash it would be a catastrophic loss.
> An MoQ directly opposed to SOM would be anti-rational, anti-logical,
> self-destructive and doomed from the get-go. SOM just has a big ego and
> the MoQ knocks it down a peg or two. :)

Damn straight! In the initial rush of excitement after reading Pirsig,
I had a tendency to get big-headed, thinking I'd been let in on the
true reality and that from here on in I'd be so much more enlightened
all these dolts living in their world of subjects and objects. As
Laird says: dangerous road.

Throwing out subjects and objects is crazy talk, and not very useful.
It's tied up my brains a fair few times. The great thing about the MOQ
is that it doesn't _start_ with subjects and objects - it starts with
experience. So in a way, MOQ _is_ opposed to SOM, i.e. a metaphysics
which starts with subjects and objects. But the MOQ doesn't ban us
from talking about or thinking about subjects and objects.

The MOQ is a philosophy for life, rather than a philosophy for knifed,
dissected, dead matter. That's something I'd been looking for before
picking up ZMM. The danger that I succumbed to after reading Pirsig
was deluding myself that it's always wrong to think in terms of
subjects and objects. It's a delusion every bit as guilt-inducing as
believing in Original Sin.

The subject/object distinction is a poor metaphysical master. But
let's not forget that it can be an excellent servant.

Regards,
Mike