[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, DMB and All.

24 May. :

DMB had 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.

Intellect - the Q level - can NOT produce any number of metaphysical 
systems, it is the S/O tap-root from which many off-shoots have 
grown. For instance the mind/matter one which has spawned the 
academical distinction between humanities and sciences and 
philosophy belongs to the former category and philosophy certainly 
can - and has produced countless "systems". None of these need 
carry an explicit S/O stamp, but the overarching presupposition is that 
all are subjective theories about a reality "out there". So we see that 
DMB and the fundamentalists don't rgard the 4th level as the S/O 
distinction, but as its subjective part. And now we understand the 
juggernaut that Pirsig was up against in constructing a system which 
was supposed to  de-arm SOM by making it a subsystem of its own. 
He started out correctly  with the "no one can avoid metaphysics" 
opening which went straight at the tap-root, but  then took the fatal turn 
with the "metaphysics a ten thousand word menu ..." and by this the 
MOQ became another Aristotelian "metaphysics" i.e. a theory about 
reality, and did not get off the ground.     

Regarding Mary's I think it fits nicely: The presupposition of DMB is 
that "intellect" is the subjective mind thinking about the objective world.

As not to give DMB a chance to delete and find some harmless issue I 
stop here.

Bodvar














  






> > 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
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
>