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

[Laird Bedore]

Hi Ham!! (sorry, excited, it's been a long week and I'm just catching up 
with all the posts now)

> [Ham]
> Greetings Joseph, Laird --
>
> Your analysis of the fundamental discussions on this form is comprehensive
> and thought provoking.  Although we've had disagreements in the past, I'm
> not so sure our conceptual positions were in conflict as much as was our
> articulation of them.  For example, I take issue with Laird's statement
> alleging "opposition" of the MoQ with SOM.
>
>
>   
>> [Laird]
>> 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. :)
>>     
>
> [Ham]
> In my opinion, SOM is by nature immune to attack.  I think this charge is a
> red herring.  We don't need a metaphysics for S/O, unless you regard
> epistemology as metaphysics.  Existence is by nature a subject/object
> dichotomy; it's the way we all experience the world.
>
>   
[Laird]
I may be misunderstanding your words, but I don't see MoQ as opposing 
SOM - I was opposing the opposition. (I'm making this worse, aren't I?)
I see the MoQ taking more of an "embrace and extend" approach - 
dismissing SOM's treatment of subject and object as primary, but 
certainly keeping subject and object high enough in the hierarchy to 
support practically all of our collected knowledge, the sciences, etc. 
It swallows SOM for sure, but opposition? Only on the "primary" bit. The 
best inroad for 'attacking' SOM is by simply challenging its 
exhaustivity. That's precisely what Robert Pirsig did in ZAMM with all 
the talk about Quality. It worked well enough to at least bring us 
together and talk about it, so that says something for the method!


>> [Laird]
>> 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.
>>     
>
> [Ham]
> Now here I see a glimmer of hope.  Joe claims (see below) he disagrees with
> me about nothingness; yet the truth of the matter is that intellectual
> "negation" IS abstraction.  It's the application of nothingness to delineate
> (i.e., abstract) 'discrete particulars' from undifferentiated otherness.
>
>   
[Laird]
Admittedly I've had a terrible time getting negation and essence (moreso 
negation) to settle in my head. Linking it with abstraction is a big 
leap forward for me. I'll have to think about this more.


>> [Joe]
>> 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.
>>     
>
> [Ham]
> Aristotle was right that we know things by abstraction (negation); but this
> epistemology does not support the idea of categories or levels of essence
> which which he also posited, as did Kant with his TITs.
>
>   
[Laird]
Yeah, Aristotle and his neverending forms! All his anal-retentive 
categorization spawned the neurotic obsession with intricacy often 
attributed to the Germans. :) Ever try to work on a German car? Oh, torture!

> Joe:
>   
>> I read ZAMM in 1993 and am still reeling from the
>> emphasis on experience. SOM is false! MOQ has a
>> better answer! IMO Pirsig proposed that morality replace
>> abstraction!
>>     
>
> This I do not understand.  Abstraction is the process by which we construct
> reality as concrete objects.  It has nothing to do with morality or man's
> sense of value.
>
>   
[Laird]
Ham, I think there are two things we agree upon! (for both our sakes 
I'll let our differences of reality definitions slide for now)

To touch on Joe's point, Pirsig may have posited morality as primary, 
but in that respect did NOT replace abstraction - he just delegated it 
to a secondary (or tertiary, whatever, you get the point!) role. He 
didn't seem to say much about it by name, but the idea is certainly 
woven into the levels of SQ.


>> [Joe]
>> 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.
>>     
>
> [Ham]
> "Emptiness" presupposes a vessel or space for its content.  Pure nothingness
> does not.  Thus, the mind can be empty because it has the capacity to be
> filled.
> Nothingness, on the other hand, is simply nothing.  It has no power of its
> own but must be created.
>
>
>   
>> [Joe]
>> 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".
>>     
>
> [Ham]
> I can buy your "cosmic evolution as objective".  However, as an
> individualist in the Randian sense, I reject the idea that the (individual)
> consciousness evolves.
> The human intellect expands, becomes more sophisticated, perhaps more
> discerning.  But for me, this is not consciousness evolving.  Earth evolves,
> biological life evolves, even culture evolves.  Consiousness remains
> conscious.
>
> At least, that's my opinion.
>
>   
[Laird]
In general I think I agree with you on individual consciousness not 
clearly evolving; that what appears to be evolving consciousness is more 
an expansion of intellect and use of prior experience... But I think 
there might be something "there" in evolving-consciousness, perhaps 
small, and perhaps the evolution stabilizes so early in life it's easy 
to dismiss as insignificant. Much akin to Pirsig's description of "waves 
of crystallization", I long ago used the phrase "plateaus of 
understanding" in a similar fashion, but in an attempt to describe 
awareness rather than intellect. I may be mixing up consciousness and 
awareness in some critical way, but I'll have to think again about this 
sometime after lunch, where I must rush now.

-Laird