[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Joseph Maurer]

On Tuesday 02 January 2007 10:20AM Laird writes to all.

Hi Guys,

It's been interesting watching how this thread has shifted and danced
around, all the while conspicuously avoiding the original topic! This
all started with my acknowledgement that "subject-object logic as
intellect" (exhaustive) had problems, so I suggested we talk about the
S/O split as a non-exhaustive subset of intellect to see if it's more
palatable than Bo's original SOL.

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. :)

So back toward the original topic again... does a revised SOL improve
the big picture? SOL/SOM as just one (though dominant) mode of
intellect, objective reality within intellect and not equivalent to
primary reality, social and intellectual level empowered by use of
abstraction/recursion... SOM can then be seen as a method of
abstraction... Mmm, lots of possible discussion, if anyone's actually
interested in discussing it, rather than bitching about aspects of the
SOL already discarded.

-Laird


Hi Laird,

IMO SOM and MOQ are impossible bedfellows. When I was studying philosophy I 
thought Heraclitus' statement that you can't step into the same river twice 
was dumb. I was enthralled by Aristotle's answer that we know things by 
abstraction. Intentional existence-subjective-intellectual-the basis for 
words knowledge was different from real existence-objective-sense 
knowledge-producing the image from which the mind abstracts the essence for 
words. Subject Object Metaphysics.

I became disillusioned with Aristotle and Aquinas when confronted by 
radical, anarchist, pacifist, non-violent resistance to evil political 
events in 1964 when I spent time with Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker. 
Ghandi's name was held in reverence.

I read ZAMM in1993 and am still reeling from the emphasis on experience. SOM 
is false! MOQ has a better answer! IMO Pirsig proposed that morality replace 
abstraction!

I had studied Gurdjieff and his followers' take on esoteric philosophy, 
before I read ZAMM. I fumbled around with Gurdjieff until Pirsig emphasized 
experience and moral levels as Quality. IMO esotericism emphasizes that two 
laws are prior to experience, a law of three for each manifestation, and a 
law of seven. I interpreted the law of seven as dimensions in existence 
which becomes the basis of evolutionary morality, code of art etc..

I do not feel I am being dismissive of Pirsig when I try to put restrictions 
or explanations on experiencing evolution and morality. I disagree with Ham 
about 'nothingness'. I experience emptiness. I am so much more delighted 
with a consideration of a difference between Cosmic evolution as objective, 
and Conscious evolution as Subjective than SOM.. When I asked Bo about S/O 
being descriptions of conscious and cosmic evolution, he told me to "keep 
thinking".

Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laird Bedore" <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction


> Hi Guys,
>
> It's been interesting watching how this thread has shifted and danced
> around, all the while conspicuously avoiding the original topic! This
> all started with my acknowledgement that "subject-object logic as
> intellect" (exhaustive) had problems, so I suggested we talk about the
> S/O split as a non-exhaustive subset of intellect to see if it's more
> palatable than Bo's original SOL.
>
> 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. :)
>
> So back toward the original topic again... does a revised SOL improve
> the big picture? SOL/SOM as just one (though dominant) mode of
> intellect, objective reality within intellect and not equivalent to
> primary reality, social and intellectual level empowered by use of
> abstraction/recursion... SOM can then be seen as a method of
> abstraction... Mmm, lots of possible discussion, if anyone's actually
> interested in discussing it, rather than bitching about aspects of the
> SOL already discarded.
>
> -Laird
>
>
>> Ian said:
>> My own struggle with accepting a clear intellectual level is not new.
>> This is one reason I was prepared to see Bo's SOLAQI as a valid
>> intepretation. Still do in fact, as a holding position. ...If we
>> simply treat "intellect" in Pirsig's own development of the MoQ as
>> Good-Old-Fashioned traditional "scientific" rationality (logically
>> positive, objective, etc), then we need space, a further evolutionary
>> layer for better forms of rationality, like the MoQ itself.
>>
>> dmb says:
>> Oh, good grief. You're so clueless and clumsy. C'mon Ian, think about
>> it. If the intellectual level of the MOQ is taken to mean S/O logic or
>> scienific objectivity then the MOQ's highest level is also the MOQ's
>> central enemy. What sort of "logic" could be used to make sense of
>> something that absurd? I mean, is it not obvious that the MOQ is a
>> metaphysical system and a set of intellectual patterns that is
>> specifically opposed to both SOM and scientific materialism? What
>> reason do we have to think the intellect would be equivalent to one
>> certain set of assumptions or one particular worldview? Even in our
>> own debates here, we use the intellect to discuss alternatives to
>> those particular pictures of realtiy. If the intellect were limited to
>> scientific materialism or to SOM, then it would be impossible to write
>> the MOQ or to discuss it here. I mean, the falsity of that assertion
>> is demonstrated here just about every day. Sigh.
>>
>
> 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/
>