[MD] Another parallel

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:
Can you demonstrate or communicate in a manner that is not subject/object based?  Can you point to an intellectual tool that is not subject/object based?  It seems to me everything in the Intellectual Level is subject/object oriented including the MoQ.

dmb says:

Well, I already tried to explain that intellectual tools like reason, logic, rationality, coherence, and agreement with experience are among the intellectual tools Pirsig uses to construct his alternative to SOM. As textual evidence, I used those quotes where Pirsig says that Phaedrus' aim was to create a new spiritual RATIONALITY and to replace the conception of intellectual activity as value-free with a conception of intellectuality that is value-based. Those would be the tools that are not subject/object based. The MOQ itself is an intellectual construct and I think it's pretty clear that it is not based on or oriented to SOM. It is opposed to SOM. Apparently, your conception of SOM is so broad and all-encompassing that we can't even communicate except on it's basis, we can't even dispute SOM except on the basis of SOM. I'd guess that these explanations would be a lot more clear to you if you narrowed that conception by several orders of magnitude.

Marsha said:
If the 4th level is a set of intellectual tools (we know of many s/o based tools), what would be a MoQ tool as opposed to a s/o tool?   (Mysticism is outside all levels)  Is the MoQ merely subject/object-language based explanation?   Is the MoQ to be just another discussion in philosophy journals or does it offer a better world-view?

dmb says:
Since SOM and the MOQ are rival sets of intellectual descriptions, they use the same tools. Again, among these tools are reason, logic, rationality, the skilled manipulation of abstractions and all the other things that one would normally associate with intellectual activity. It doesn't really matter if it is SOM, the MOQ or some other philosophy, you're still going to be using words and concepts and definitions or else there is no philosophy. And yes, the MOQ is a philosophy that could be discussed in philosophy journals, although I don't see any reason for using the dismissive word "just" in front of that discussion. Radical Empiricism is already discussed within the normal institutional parameters of academia, in journals, text books and classroom lectures. We recently saw Sandra Rosenthal presenting a paper on it at Harvard, for example. I've quoted academic journals and books on the topic for assigned writings, some of which are published at robertpirsig.org. I think it offers a better world-view and those normal parameters offer a reasonable means to get the idea out there even more. Mysticism is the harder part to deal with in that world, but it's not impossible. The first serious effort I made was in a term paper written for a class that was taught by the director of the program. Unlike Pirsig's experience in Chicago 50 years ago, however, the chairperson is not an old man, not an Aristotelian, and she's not an asshole. She loved the paper. Gave me a big fat "A" and has asked to use my writings as examples for other students. That paper, in which I construe radical empiricism as a form of philosophical mysticism and that Heidegger was just ripping off Taoism, is what got me into the program. It probably didn't hurt my cause that she is friends with Hildebrand and Rosenthal or that Pirsig said nice things about me in a letter to her, but the point is simply that one can use reason and the english language in an academic setting to make a case for mysticism or to make a case against SOM. I told her that the paper was a tiny version of what I planned to assert in my final master's thesis and she was just fine with that.  


Marsha said:I cannot help but agree with Bo that the MoQ needs to be lifted to give a broader perspective.  All static patterns in all levels represent conventional (s/o) reality.  From a higher perspective the ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected experience of patterns with DQ be properly considered.


dmb says:
Huh? Yes all the things that are conceive of as subjects and objects can be assigned within the four levels of static patterns. Basically, all physical objects, including living things, would be put into first and second levels and subjectivity would belong to the third and fourth levels. The MOQ provides a broader picture by way of radical empiricism, which adds the dynamic and includes a wider range of experience as empirically valid experience. In that sense, the MOQ already is a broader perspective that includes more and explains more than SOM or traditional empiricism ever could. 


_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009