[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham 

On 22 Nov. you wrote:

> I didn't want to leave the impression that I was mocking your theory.
> Actually, I like the way you think and admire your perspicacity in
> holding out for what you believe is the correct placement of Intellect
> in the MoQ hierarchy. .

Thanks, also for teaching me new words. "Perspicacity"! At first I 
believed it to mean "sweating", and if anything I've been laboring 
hard to forward the SOL. 

> What frustrates me, however, is what I think should also frustrate you;
> namely, having to assign a hypothetical level to what is clearly a
> subjective human faculty, thereby rendering it a "universal" in the
> abstract platonic sense.  

Talking with you Ham is "resolving a metaphysical dispute at the 
end of each sentence" You start over and over again from square 
one. Phaedrus' goal was to unhinge the S/O and introduce the 
Dynamic/Static as reality's ground (let Quality rest) and because 
he saw SOM emerge with Socrates, Plato and Aristotles (at least 
come of age) the terms "abstract", "hypothetical", "universal" 
..etc. are all somish, they don't apply to the MOQ They belong to 
its 4th. static level. The highest and best, but not reality itself.

At this depth it all starts and unless this SOM - MOQ leap is 
done, or not wanted done, the MOQ is impotent. Seen from SOM 
(which is the 4th. level not knowing its level quality) the MOQ is 
sheer nonsense. This may be a show-stopper, a bit like 
Kierkegaard's claim that faith requires a leap from a thousand 
fathoms. But having made the said leap the MOQ is unassailable 
and I understand your frustration, we are shouting across the said 
5000 fathom void. At least until now. 

> There is nothing more unequivocal in my philosophy than the proprietary
> nature of cognizant awareness.  So, perhaps you will understand my
> aversion to the notion of intelligence, intellection, consciousness, or
> organic sensibility as "universal properties"

Provided I understand what "proprietary nature of cognizant 
awareness" means .... my guess is that you see the human mind 
as the Ground Zero - the given - and that (you claim that) this 
can't be divided (seen as an universal property, meaning 
independent of mind) If this is correct it rests on an understanding 
of the 4th. as mind/awareness/consciousness, and that is not my 
MOQ.      
 
> When you say, "This mind/brain (S/O) distinction is intellect's
> VALUE!", you ring my chimes, because this is exactly what I've tried
> to express in my thesis.  The problem is that you don't carry this
> concept through to completion.  It comes across as just an axiom
> without ontological support.

Yes, at times I've had the hunch that we are heading the same 
way, perhaps on parallel tracks. I certainly do carry it through, too 
far for comfort perhaps. The axiom part I agree with, but THAT is 
done way ahead of the 4th. level, it's the said  (S/O - D/S) leap.    

> You go on to say:
> > The fact that this subject seemingly surveys both the subjective and
> > the objective realities is result of ever more turns of the S/O
> > screw. It has turned since the Greeks and we may no longer figure
> > out all its intricacies. The MOQ is an Ariadne thread that finally
> > can lead us out of intellect's S/O labyrinth.

> Agreed.  Then lead us out of the labyrinth by explaining the role
> Value plays in reversing or annulling the S/O distinction.  For
> example, I maintain that Value is what connects the subject to its
> objective reality, that by appropriating Value for itself the finite
> subject incrementally dissolves the "self/other", S/O distinction and
> restores the unity of its absolute source, intellectualizing (i.e.,
> experiencing) the differentiated world of beingness in the process. 
> If you comprehend this ontological paradigm--even if you can't accept
> it--I would be most grateful if you could put it in the context of
> your SOL for comparative purposes.  

Phew quite a challenge and I ought to be shot at dawn if I fail 
here. You know Phaedrus (ZAMM) coming to the conclusion that 
something precedes "intellect" (he finds likeness with Poincare's 
"beauty" and James' "aesthetic continuum", but for now never 
mind) Phaedrus calls it Value and at first it is Pre-intellect/ 
Intellect, with "intellect" that of a subject becoming aware of 
objects. I.e. the basic S/O (not [yet] the complicated variety of a 
self becoming  aware of itself becoming aware of objects, or even 
still more intricate constellations). 

This does IMO "explain the role Value plays in reversing the S/O 
distinction. 

Your variety (I repeat it): 

> Value is what connects the subject to its objective reality, that by
> appropriating Value for itself the finite subject incrementally
> dissolves the "self/other", S/O distinction and restores the unity of
> its absolute source, intellectualizing (i.e., experiencing)

looks to me as saying that there is no - can't be any - pre-intellect 
without the human intellect.  That the "finite subject" (or intellect, 
mind, awareness ..whatever) is the ultimate reality. In that case 
we have a "Subject Metaphysics" and it works if divide the same 
way and has the same static levels.

I understand, but let me continue how the MOQ unfolded: From 
this Pre-intellectual/ Intellectual dichotomy (the latter=SOM) he 
went on sketch a formal metaphysics. But here the snag appears 
that has haunted the MOQ ever since: he sees Quality divided 
the Dynamic/Static way (romantic/classic in ZAMM, but never 
mind) but it's really the said pre-intellectual or Dynamic Quality 
which spawns a static (S/O) Quality. He almost made it by 
making Static=S/O, but the damage was done Quality is outside 
the MOQ

Here ZAMM's attempt at a MOQ ends, but the book goes on to 
tell how the SOM emerged as the notion of Truth over Opinion 
and how this innocent and obvious dichotomy began to spawn 
more variants by way of Plato and Aristotles only arriving at the 
S/O and mind/matter varieties fairly recent. P. did not say, but I 
see it as continuing to turn out ever more intricate S/Os: 
Consciousness and self-consciousness being conscious of itself 
being conscious  ... ad absurdity.  

> In this way, we could perhaps have a constructive dialogue on the
> cosmological, epistemological, and ontological aspects of both
> philosophies.  I suspect that such a discussion might have more than
> passing interest to the MoQists in this forum. 

It's really ironic if the two of us are the ones to understand each 
other while the other ... alas.

> Thanks for your willingness to consider my ideas, Bo.  I would wish
> you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving, except that this holiday has no
> historical basis for celebration in Norway.  So have a pleasant
> weekend, anyway, and take care until the next time we talk.

Somehow I always thought you were British, but you are 
American. Well the kids over here (and business) have begun to 
ape the Halloween so we may soon be eating turkeys ;-)

Thanks all the same.

Bo

PS.
As said I understand you position that the subject is the ultimate 
reality and ironic enough Pirsig seemed to have arrived at the 
same conclusion in LILA by making the 4th. level - not as he saw 
it in ZAMM as the S/O prism -  but as mind,  and in Lila's Child he 
delivered some annotations that sounds as if the MOQ has a 
subjective leaning ... which is wrong, both S and O are abolished.  

PPS
These posts are killing me, so if you don't understand that I 
understand you, and start again from square one it's no good, you 
will not make any progress.