[MD] Natural Law

[skutvik at online.no]

Matt

29 July.

John had butted in:
> Here is why your formulation of SOM=intellect falls flat, Bo. Finding a
> base for morals in SOM is futile, because SOM is the metaphysical stance
> that there is no such thing as objective morality.  Its all subjective
> and relative. 

Matt comments: 
> I'm glad you said this, John, because it highlights the _ambiguity_ in
> the very notion of subject/object.  It is not conceptually necessary
> for one to hold a subject/object distinction _and thus_ to claim that
> "there is no such thing as objective morality."  You need _additional_
> premises to do so, thus making Pirsig's "SOM" a _particular strand of
> reasoning about subjects and objects_.  The _two_ additional premises
> that Pirsig uses are 1) "object" is construed as _material_ and 2) the
> metaphysics is reductionistic in reducing everything that is (thereby)
> real to objects.

That SOM is "objects and subjects"  is a most silly and primitive 
definition. SOM's emergence is so superbly described in ZAMM

    Early Greek philosophy represented the first conscious search 
    for what was imperishable in the affairs of men. Up to then 
    what was imperishable was within the domain of the Gods, the 
    myths. But now, as a result of the growing impartiality of the 
    Greeks to the world around them, there was an increasing 
    power of abstraction which permitted them to regard the old 
    Greek mythos not as revealed truth but as imaginative 
    creations of art. This consciousness, which had never existed 
    anywhere before in the world, spelled a whole new level of 
    transcendence for the Greek civilization. 

THIS is what all is about, the growing impartiality, detachment or 
OBJECTIVITY that transformed the old mythology into imaginary i.e. 
SUBJECTIVE creations. By and by - as the story goes - things ended 
in the Plato vs Sophists struggle, the latter claiming that all was man-
made i.e. subjective, but - as is the case even today - the subjectivists 
must argue objectively for their view. SOM was settled and have since 
entrenched itself so firmly in the Western hemisphere that most of you 
are unable to free yourselves from it.      

> It's fine to tinker with different versions of the subject/object
> distinction (Pirsig does), but the confusion on just what people are
> saying by taking different stances towards SOM or SOL or whatever
> stems from leaving too many of these premises in the train of thought
> cloudy and obscure.

The SOM has countless offshoots and variants, but in  ZAMM it's all 
about the technological heaven and metaphysical hell it has landed the 
Wester civilization in. Different stances toward SOM is not so 
widespread - only the Kunderts of this world must of course 
problematize it - the different stance is mostly regarding the MOQ, but 
only the SOL interpretation (the 4th. level = SOM) harmonizes ZAMM 
and LILA plus makes all  puzzle piece fall into place.     

> p.s.  I'm glad people read other books and come back and link them up
> to Pirsig.  A distinct intellectual sterility sets in when you don't.

No doubt you are happy, but nothing compares to the MOQ, it is a 
metaphysical shift that only can be compared to the one just 
described, the Mythological - SOM one (the social - intellectual in a Q 
context)


Bodvar