[MD] The SOL-ution

[Jos Laycock]

Whoah there.
I need to point out that the below quotes are not attributable to me and
neither do they represent my views.

Proprietry to the individual subject? Ham I still disagree with you, these
quotes are from someone else and presumably from threads I have not even
read or I would certainly have offered an opinion to the contrary.

Would someone care to offer an explanation?

Jos

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: 12 January 2007 07:34
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The SOL-ution

Hi Laird, Jos, Bo --

Since Bo is back, for the present at least, the SO[L] again looms as a
Gordian knot to be untangled.  What it's tangled in of course is this
arbitrary "levels theory" which, I must confess, I've never mastered.  It
seems to me that Pirsig's cosmology is founded on Quality (DQ) as the
primary essence.  How the individual differentiates this essence is the
missing epistemology of the MoQ, and the author's failure to lay it out in
systematic fashion has left much room for speculation.

Unless we're talking abstractly, all objects are either organic or
inorganic.  Pirsig calls them "objective levels".  Both kinds are made of
atoms and molecules, behave according to the laws of nature, and exhibit
experiencable properties.  The major difference between the two is that
certain complex organic entities are capable of reproducing themselves; and
this fact has led to Science to add Biology, Biophysics, Neurophysiology,
and Genetics to other investigative disciplines like Physics, Chemistry,
Geology, and Anthropology.

There are many other phenomena that are experienced in existence and studied
by scientists -- gravity, magnetism, radiation, combustion, kinetics,
thermodynamics, optics, weather, agronomy, animal behavior, cybernetics,
etc., but Pirsig has elected to name just two: Social patterns (culture),
and Intellect
(cognizant awareness).  He calls these the "subjective levels."  Everything
else is a "pattern".

According to the MoQ, existence is a four-level Quality (or Value) heirarchy
in which the "lower stages" (inorganic and organic) evolve to the higher
stages (social and intellectual).  Why and how they evolve are not explained
in ZMM or the SODV paper, until in LILA the author suggests that the
heirachy embodies a "moral principle" -- the universe moves toward
"betterness".

Pirsig believes the universe is moral.  If accepting that notion makes you
happy, you may not need a workable epistemology.  But some of us do; and
we're not ashamed to show our confusion on this issue.  For example:

Jos said:
> I am unsure, Laird, that I agree that "[S/O] is the
> predominant mode of the intellectual level...but not
> the only mode."
> Modes of intellect seem to require a body/soul split.
> I can not envision modes of body on a sentient level.

Laird replied:
> When looking at intellect as "mind" in terms of the
> mind/matter dichotomy, I can see your point.
> But when looking at intellect as patterns of value,
> I think that split just dissolves.

Bo said:
> Intellect is the VALUE of splitting existence into
> materialism and idealism, matter and mind, and the
> many S/O derivatives.

Laird replied:
> I think the keystone of (at least my) questions circle
> around one specific point: Is the subject/object divide
> found in every intellectual pattern, or does the intellectual
> level include other patterns devoid of the subject-object
> divide?  SOLAQI (subject-object logic AS quality-intellect)
> implies in its very name that the split is exhaustive...
> while many here (myself included) are taking the stance
> that the S/O divide is not and cannot be exhaustive.

Laird, I don't know how Bo will answer your question.  But, like Jos, I
can't imagine a "mode of intellect" as a physical phenonenon.  Intellect
(which I call cognizance) is psychic awareness, and it's proprietary to the
individual subject.  When you start parceling it out to the objective world,
it becomes something else: a body of knowledge, perhaps, or a collection of
concepts or principles.  That is not conscious awareness, it's an objective
"tool"' of consciousness.  Likewise, to say that man is a social creature
does not mean that society is a collectivized form of human being.  Man does
not lose his individuality by being grouped together in a social context.

Bo is correct that Value derives from subjective awareness being split from
objective otherness.  Objects represent value to us because they are what we
are not.  The subject/object divide IS "exhaustive".  Every object in
existence is relative to and differentiated from every other as
intellectualized.  It is the subject who does the intellectualizing, because
only conscious subjects can realize value.  But such a concept is made
incomprehensible by the multi-level heirarchy that Pirsig devised to
eliminate the S/O dichotomy.  The terms "inorganic" and "organic" apply to
objects.  Society is a collective group of individuals, who may be regarded
as "objects" in a survey or poll.  But Intellect (or Mind) is never an
object.  And you won't escape the S/O division by categorizing it as
objective.

Just thought I'd use the opportunity to expose this fallacy.

Essentially yours,
Ham


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/