Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:50:57 +0100
> From: Horse <email@example.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: LS Re: Explain the subject-object metaphysics
> Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 6:03 PM
> Hi Squad
> "It is one of the most tormenting problems of the physics to which
> positivism looks for guidance. The torment occurs not because of
> anything discovered in the laboratory. Data are data. It is the
> intellectual framework with which one deals with the data that is at
> fault. The fault is within [a] subject-object metephysics itself."
> "A conventional subject-object metaphysics uses the four......"
> "When a subject-object metaphysics regards matter and mind as
> eternally seperate and eternally unalike it creates a platypus bigger
> than the solar system."
> Although the above is not necessarily representative of the rest of
> Lila, I think it seems reasonable to suggest that Pirsig is not making
> reference to some tome called "The Subject-Object Metaphysics - a
> Definition". The SOM of Lila is a metaphorical tool used to represent
> a taxonomic structure (in the broad sense of the word). The taxons are
> not "subject" and "object" but A OR not A. Something is one thing or
> it is another. Dualism. The law of the excluded middle.
> MoQ gets around this by assuming that all things are A AND NOT A.
> In Subjects, Objects, Data and Value (SODV) Pirsig again fails to
> refer to THE subject-object metaphysics.
> >From what I have seen from Squad postings, the biggest problem to get
> around, and one that the 'Church of Reason' latches onto is that the
> MoQ does not kill SOM, it embraces and devours it, making it part of
> the MoQ. It reduces it to a one PART of reality, not reality itself
> and especially not the whole model. The map of reality is unfolding
> and the part we are at now is where MoQ will take us.
> I'm off on holiday for a week with the family - and Zen, Lila, and
> See you when I get back
> "Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name.
> But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game"
> Jagger and Richard - Sympathy for the Devil
> post message - mailto:email@example.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
I think Horse has about the right take on Pirsig's idea of the
subject-object metaphysics. As Horse says, when Pirsig uses the term
subject-object metaphysics he is talking about the condition where we
perceive ourselves as being somehow separate from the rest of nature. We
perceive ourselves as sitting off in isolation observing the universe
operate. We feel that we are somehow separate entities not involved in
ongoing process of the natural world. He is saying that if we do not
recognize ourselves (mind and body alike) as being an integral part, and
product of, the operation of Quality, then we are putting ourselves in a
position where we will never be able to fully understand and appreciate
functioning of Dynamic Quality.
As an aside, this is why I believe, and think it is in accordance with
Pirsig's thinking, that we should regard Quality as having been
in the universe from the beginning. If we do this then we can regard
ourselves, and all other components of the universe, as separate
all of which are wholly subsumed and integrated into the evolution of
universe and consequently all part of a seamless whole under the
of Quality. In this view Good is a noun and not a philosophical
I vote that we take Horse's answer and go on to the next problem.
-- post message - mailto:email@example.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST