[MD] a view

[John Carl]

Thanks for posting this, Marsha.  You certainly give us a lot to chew on.
I've been wanting to address parts of it, but it's been a busy weekend.

Hopefully I'll have time to tell you about that.  Right now, I just wanna
philosophize:

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> This is how I understand the Intellectual (SOM) Level.  From
> the SOM perspective, there is the unknown and the known.
>


Is that true?  What is, an "unknown"?  A mental construct of some kind?  A
variable space carved out of the rest of reality, ready to be filled in
later?  I'm not sure.

But leaving that aside, from a SOM perspective, I'd say there is the thinker
and her thoughts - and that's all.

I think a very important component of the MoQ that's left out of discussion
usually, is that RMP's main beef was the relegation of values to mere
subjective opinion.  Something Not real, like the objective reality a
scientist reports on.

Simply by explaining valuation as fundamental to reality, the MoQ overthrew
the ideas of SOM.  That's the main point that is the heart of the MoQ.  That
is our Absolute - Value - Quality - the Good.

You can deduce its ontological necessity as some are wont to do, or just sit
on a hot stove as  is the preference of others.  But it's fundamental nature
is obvious which is why Royce dismissively refers to it as a theory of being
that "no serious thinker holds for long".




> The known uses language as its primary tool.  Language has been
> built hand-in-hand with human understanding of reality, they have
> evolved together, and they reflect reality as subjects and objects,
> our language and subject-object metaphysics are interrelated.
>

Almost true.  "metaphysics" get's tossed around a lot.  Definitely language
is part and parcel of the thinker and her thoughts.  But many cultures in
history have formulated ideas about what you might mean by "unknown",
bringing it into the realm of the known - with no ultimate denial of values
as only subjective.  In fact, just the opposite, right?

Thus the assumption of assigning metaphysical status to the S/O combine has
not been inextricably linked with language.




> (In the Social Level, this s-o understanding is unconscious.)
> In the Intellectual Level the subject-object split is conscious,
> and has undergone a dissection to strip the ‘subjective’ from
> influencing our search for the external Truth in Nature.



One big place I disagree with Bo's read, is the interpretation of bottom-up
evolutionary development from lower level to higher.   It just doesn't work
for me.  I say that social patterns are created intellectually.

Take ancient religious myths, for instance.  The idea that they just evolved
socially is wrong on its face.  Social patterns do not arise spontaneously
anymore than chemistry professors do.  Somebody had to think this stuff up.
Somebody had to ponder the unknown and attempt to bring it into the realm of
knowability in a manner comprehensible and transferable and workable in the
empirical world of experience.  When everybody in the tribe recognizes it as
good, it gets passed on.

That's intellectual activity, that is.  No other animal does it, only
humanity.

So the "social religions" of the ancients and the moderns, are social in the
sense of their propogation, enactment and continuance.   But certainly not
their origin or creation.  Thus this idea of Bo's straightline evolving from
the bottom reality is ridiculous and anti-MoQ as well.



>
> You might at this point suggest that the Eastern point-of-view has
> developed a reality that reflects the MoQ, and it was developed
> many centuries ago.  I might agree that there are Eastern philosophies
> that are monistic.  But I’d remind you that enlightenment is considered
> an awakening, an awakening from the wrong understanding of reality.
> That wrong understanding of reality is the dualistic, self-other, or
> subject-object, point-of-view which inspires desire and fear, and
> causes suffering.  Buddhism has created an complete system of
> practice to assist the individual to move from ignorance to clarity.
> This clarity is not the norm for most.
>
>

Buddhism is a very high Quality intellectual system.  It's not SOM and it's
not the MoQ.  I think it's of lower quality than the MoQ, but I'd be hard
pressed to describe exactly why.  At this time, I say it mainly as a matter
of faith.  Faith in two different authors coming from two differing
perspectives, RMP and Royce, who both look long and hard at mysticism and
both end up discarding it for similar reasons.  Pirsig stated his when he
walked out of Benares (figuratively) over the question of whether atomic
bombs dropped on people really happened.



>  I suppose I might add that my understanding is more stable then
> ever before, but it is still always subject to change.
>
>
>  Marsha
>
>
Which is one reason I highly value your thinking  Marsha.   "Subject to
change" means always improving  and getting better all the time.

Woo hoo!

John