[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Mary]

Hi DMB and Bo by reference,

> dmb said:
> The intellect can produce any number of metaphysical systems. SOM and
> the MOQ are two such systems and they can hang next to countless
> other...
> 
> Mary Replied:
> Yes.  'Any number' of systems.  All of them involve a subject thinking
> about an object.  All are included.  None are left out.
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> All metaphysical systems involve subjects thinking about objects?
> Again, you have inflated SOM way beyond its actual meaning. Again, the
> problem is this notion that subject and object are two entirely
> different kinds of entities. But you and Bo seem to think the problem
> is thinking itself. If there are thoughts, then there is a mind and
> mind is the subject so, you conclude, anybody who ever had a thought
> about anything has committed themselves to SOM. Or to put it another
> way, you and Bo think there is no such thing as thinking without SOM.
>
[Mary Replies] 
I would put it more like this:  Without entering an extraordinary meditative
state, there is no thinking without Subject-Object Logic.  We can't help
doing it.  I differ a bit from Bo, I think.  SOL is the way we think and SOM
is the evolutionary culmination of that kind of thought known as the
Intellectual Level.  If the question is what distinguishes the Intellectual
Level from the Social, then you cannot say it is symbol manipulation nor can
you say it is thinking itself.  These definitions are too broad by far.
They explain nothing and distinguish nothing.
 
> I'm trying to be patient and polite about this, but damn! I really
> think you don't understand what the problem is. Rejecting SOM means
> rejecting a certain conception of "mind" but it is not opposed to
> thinking or thoughts. A philosophy that's against thinking? How
> pointless would that be?
> 
[Mary Replies] 
And I have to admit to a certain level of frustration when communicating
with you on this.  ;-) 

Though it is certainly possible to grasp certain aspects of the MoQ without
accepting a SOM-from-SOL premise, it is to lose the enormity of the MoQ's
power to do so and leaves the Intellectual Level so vague as to be
irrelevant.

There are many ways to come to the MoQ.  Many 'levels' by which it may be
understood.  In my view, you have latched onto one that is incomplete.
Ultimately, the logic of the MoQ describes a harmonious circle while your
conception describes a straight line.

> Mary Replied:
> What was the Buddha thinking about under the tree?  Is the East really
> so different?
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Again, it seems there is an unstated premise here. You say the East is
> not different to imply that they suffer from SOM just like we do here
> in the West. Is that the idea? And you ask about what the Buddha was
> thinking because you think that thinking is what defines SOM. Again,
> the point of being opposed to subject-object dualism is not to condemn
> thinking but rather to dispute a certain conception of mind.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I do not think Bo equates SOM with thinking itself, quite the contrary, and
I certainly do not.  SOM is a particular attitudinal shift that did not
always exist.  It is a very powerful one and we can see evidence everywhere
that it works - up to a point. It is a high Quality construction.  If you
are going to examine what distinguishes the Intellectual Level from the
Social, you must assert something that is actually different from the
Social; otherwise, what is the need for an Intellectual Level at all?

As far as unstated premises, yes, certainly.  What I see in the MoQ is not
amenable to sound bites.  

What might be helpful is for you to examine your own unstated premises.  I
say this not in a negative way, but because I understand you are engaged in
writing a thesis on the subject.  I think it would be a mistake for you to
plunge into that without being open to all views.  Do you know that those of
us who disagree with you from time to time are really trying to help you?  



> For example, in the first of the essays in radical empiricism is titled
> "Does Consciousness Exist?". The answer James gives is "no", not if
> consciousness is conceived as a distinct entity or thing as Descartes
> said. Instead, James says, consciousness is a function within
> experience. It's not a thing. It is a process or function and it is NOT
> an ontologically distinct reality.
> 
> That is why Bo freaks out over the idea that the MOQ is just a set of
> ideas. If it is an idea, he figures, then it can only exist in the mind
> and the mind can only ever be the subjective half of SOM. But this is
> very bad reasoning and it is based on a major misconception of the
> problem, a inflated idea of what he Cartesian subject is and so of
> course the solution (MOQ) doesn't make much sense either.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
No.  Your characterization of Bo is incorrect.  But it is not my place to
say so.  It is Bo's.

> And it's not quite relevant to this point, but haven't you noticed how
> Pirsig's central concept (DQ) plays almost no role in Bo's theory? If
> the problem (SOM), the solution (MOQ) and the mystical nature of his
> central term (DQ) are all misunderstood then there is basically no
> chance that this theory is worth anything at all. Honestly, I can't
> think of anything about Pirsig's work that is properly understood by
> Bo.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
No.  Quite the contrary.  What I see is that DQ plays no role in your
theory.  Instead, you appear to be obsessed with comparing Pirsig with those
who have gone before when what is extraordinary about Pirsig is the way he
has transcended them.  You are making the mistake of the anthropologists
Pirsig decried; engaged upon a Ruth Benedict type deconstruction of your
subject, and if you don't step back your Ph.D. thesis will surely reflect
this same lack of Quality.

> I see you as a victim here, Mary. If you came here to better understand
> the MOQ, I'd suggest you stop listening to Bo. On the other hand, how
> in the world do you figure such opinions can outweigh all the scholars
> of pragmatism that I've quoted on this topic? Isn't is wildly
> unreasonable to dismiss Pirsig and a whole pack of professionals? I
> think so. If Bo had just one competent thinker on his side, it might be
> possible to make a case that the issue is debatable. But he doesn't and
> it isn't.
> 
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I am not a victim of Bo any more than a victim of anyone else who posts
here.  I read as many as I have time for.  No offense to Bo intended, but I
find many of his posts murky and incomprehensible and attribute this to a
language barrier.  I do see many similarities between my thinking and his,
but also areas where we disagree.  I'm sure he and I will explore these in
time.

In a broad, general way (which is admittedly never the best way to do these
things) what I see in your writing is a lack of acknowledgement that the MoQ
is most powerful when understood as a melding of Eastern and Western
thought.  You seem completely focused on the Western aspects to the
exclusion of all else, when the Western aspects are actually the least
interesting.  I find it extraordinary that I receive the most flack for my
views from a Westerner, when Pirsig himself feared the approbation of the
Eastern Mystics far more.  This is almost funny, and I think Pirsig gets the
joke.
 

Best,
Mary