[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Mary]

Hi DMB,

Almost a week and no response.  I would like you, the thesis writer, to tell
me what the difference is between the Intellectual Level and the Social.
Save me from being 'victimized' by Bo.  

Mary

- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary [mailto:marysonthego at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 7:59 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Cc: 'Mary'
> Subject: RE: [MD] Reading & Comprehension
> 
> 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