[MD] The SOL-ution

[MarshaV]

At 08:41 AM 1/19/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha (V=the fifth?)
>
>On 18 Jan. you wrote:
>
>(after I had written)
> > >A little introduction: In LILA somewhere Pirsig makes it sound as if
> > >Reality=Quality is the revolutionary thing, while the dynamic/static
> > >split (D/S) is an arbitrary choice. He even says that SOM is a
> > >subject/object divide of the said Quality.
>
>Marsha:
> > Am I correct to state that before RMP's 'Reality=Quality', the
> > prominent Western worldview was 'Reality=Subjects&Objects'?

Bo,

I guess your answer is " that's just spot on!".

As to your additional explanation.     What!!!

m








>YES! was my immediate reply. It still is but then Anthony
>remarked: "Just objects", after which Mark - of all persons in the
>world - agreed with me. However let me talk a little about this -
>um - subject.
>
>In ZMM the subject/object division is described as emerging with
>the Greeks, displacing the old Aretê reality. Now let the Aretê
>issue rest and concentrate on ZMM's treatment of the SOM. (the
>abbreviation is not used in that book, but we know what's up)
>
>Phaedrus was confronted with the question if (his) Quality was
>subjective or objective. He rejected both alternatives by a line of
>argument too long to summarize here, but what's important is
>this:
>
>     And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his
>     knowledge had never been taken before in the history of
>     Western thought, went straight between the horns of the
>     subjectivity-objecetivity dilemma and said Quality is
>     neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third
>     entity which is independent of the two.
>
>In a MOQ hindsight we see that Phaedrus was immersed in the
>SOM and accepted that Quality had to belong somewhere in its
>S/O matrix. However after the said brainstorm Quality had
>become a third entity (the trinity phase) but by and by he turned
>things inside-out: Quality became the SOURCE of the S/O
>divide, i.e; a "Quality/S-O" metaphysics.
>
>This is much like the Romantic/Classic proto-moq where the right
>hand side is sub-titled 'intellect' and then S/O-divided. In other
>words Phaedrus saw intellect=SOM and in my opinion this is how
>the final MOQ's 4th. level should have been defined (hence the
>SOL interpretation)
>
>So in the ZMM all is correct: SOM is presented as MOQ's
>metaphysical rival, but stripped of its "M" relegated the role of
>"intellect". In LILA however SOM appears as a mere "substance
>metaphysics" (Anthony's "object) as a useful yet limited idea in an
>idea-intellect. LILA says further:
>
>     This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics
>     of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought but that's
>     not true.  Unlike subject-object metaphysics the
>     Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single
>     exclusive truth.
>
>Of course MOQ's purpose is to replace SOM's subject/object split
>with is the own dynamic/static one - AS THE METAPHYSICAL
>REALITY - yet keeping the former as its highest static good. This
>is Phaedrus' original insight and the only way to deal with things.
>Why Pirsig of LILA deviated from this this is (my) great mystery.
>
>The "many truths" idea is both untenable and outright dangerous,
>but let me stop here. Your question was if it is correct to state
>that before RMP's 'Reality=Quality', the prominent Western
>worldview was 'Reality=Subjects&Objects'?
>
>... and that's just spot on! The issue of the Aretê reality that
>preceded SOM - how this will be treated in a MOQ light - I will
>return to.
>
>IMO
>
>Bo
>
>
>
>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/