[MD] Another parallel

[MarshaV]

At 03:41 PM 7/14/2009, you wrote:

>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.

  Your explanation doesn't work for me.  RMP also said to "Kill all 
intellectual patterns".  RMP's intent has become a MoQ tool?  Your 
use of the word SOM is an objectification.  If you can explain the 
MoQ in a non-s/o language we might find agreement.   Are trying to 
hide the anomalies?



>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.

'Just' philosophy journals as opposed to infiltrated into mythos.


>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.

OMG!   I remember what it was like to go back to University.  Thank 
goodness, it wears off with time.

Did you happen to watch the director's cut of the movie I suggested: 
The Four Feathers?




>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.

Objectification, reification takes place on all levels.  Marriage has 
been objectified as an institution.  Gravity has been objectified as 
a '"Law".    Quarks and leptons have become objectified as 
fundamental particles. You are objectifying the MoQ in your 
statements.  Quarks and leptons have become objectified as 
fundamental particles.

The MoQ is a broader perspective because it is a view closer to 
reality; its power is not dependent on Radical Empiricism,or for that 
matter, William James, John Dewey, John Stuhr, Sandra Rosenthal, 
Hegel or Heidegger.  It's power is dependent on experience.


Marsha













____________

"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain and increases inner 
strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama