Hello, Everyone -
Mr. Elephant wrote:
If you think that value (quality) enters
into the construction or make up of all objects, then the idea that there
could be objects around before we recognised them just doesn't make sense:
the world is what it is because it is an evaluation: and we do the
evaluation.
I don't usually just jump in here, but this statement bothers me. It seems
that you are saying that the MOQ requires that the human brain/mind is at
the center of the universe, and that nothing exists before it is perceived.
If the MOQ is saying that the human mind PERCEIVES that quality enters into
the make up of all objects, that is much less interesting than if quality
actually COMPELS objects to be made. Am I missing something?
Marty J
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of PzEph
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:09 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD the particular, the general, EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
ELEPHANT TO PETER, RE INTRINSIC PROPERTIES, CHRIS, & REFERENCES TO HIGHLY
EVOLVED BIOLOGISTS:
CHRIS HAD WRITTEN: (1) There is enough evidence around to validate the
conjecture that in the human brain, and in the brains of other lifeforms,
the distinction is made of the particular and the general and from this
emerges the concepts of objects and relationships.
RICHARD ASKED: Which studies is this taken from?
ELEPHANT HAD TRUMPETED: There's Millions of them to choose from. They are
the
same ones that show how consciouness has evolved to it's highest form in the
lesser-crested biologist.
CHRIS THEN WROTE: :-) yes there are a lot! however here is a list of useful
refs that cover the ONE:MANY, WHAT/WHERE, OBJECT/RELATIONSHIPS expressions
in scales from neuron to neural groups to the 'top' of the list, the
neocortex... first set of refs favour the single frequency detection of the
more 'object' side - that that favours 'what' and so when particularised we
get WHO and WHICH.. all 'dot' or 'point' oriented terms...
ELEPHANT HAD WRITTEN: ~:---() Could please explain the quote-marks here
around 'object'?
An object is an object.
PETER WROTE:
DearPzEph, That's just the point: any object is made of little objects, and
is itself a composite of bigger ones, right up to "all there is"; the
objects, sorry, "objects" we know are the ones we recognise as such because
we've evolved to recognise (and manipulate) just those objects which are of
an appropriate scale (to our survival needs)....
ELEPHANT NOW SNORTS:
Surely not, not if you're a MOQer! If you think that value (quality) enters
into the construction or make up of all objects, then the idea that there
could be objects around before we recognised them just doesn't make sense:
the world is what it is because it is an evaluation: and we do the
evaluation.
PETER ALSO WROTE:
...isn't this what Pirsig was banging on about when considering Romantic vs
Classical considerations of a motorbike? The idea that "objects" have some
intrinsic properties which qualify them as such, independant of our
viewpoint, seems difficult to maintain without saying that actually,
everything is object, and either infinitely divisible, or not actually
divisible at all.
ELEPHANT PUZZLES OVER THIS:
Er, this appears (a) to run counter to your earlier comments, and (b) to
present too many confusioning aspects for me to think about all at once - I
don't know where to start. I'm hoping Rog will jump in and put both of us
right before things get out of hand. OK:
(1) objects could be independant of our veiwpoint without having
intrinsic properties, if by intrinsic property you mean something like the
Kantian Noumena - the thing in itself. How is this possible? Well you
could treat ZAMM as an enquiry into this question. It seems to me that the
Answer Prisig gives is like the answer of James and Dewey. Dewey says that
far from there being no accounting for taste as the Rationalist would say,
taste is the only thing worth accounting for and arguing about. Now in a
sense, and importantly for MOQ, our realities, objects, are the concrete
manifestations of our tastes - what we value, our prefered mode of inquiry,
purposes and so on. So, when we argue about what we should value, about
what we should think of as having Quality, well, in these cases we are also
arguing about what is real, about what objects there are. Well, why are we
arguing about these tastes, and these realities, if there are no intrinsic
properties? For this reason: we naturally want to have the tastes (and
objects) that will serve us best, and pursuing them is pursuing a reality
which is independent of any current veiwpoint or taste. Indeed, I would say
that it is pursuing Quality itself (and not Truth, as Pierce would have it).
(2) I am really at a loss to understand what you are driving at with the
'divisible' thing. I'd love to discuss Zeno's paradoxes, if that's what
you're on about. Is it?
(3) Re everything being an object. Er, no, actually. We have to have a
name for what goes on before we objectify things in pursuit of quality.
Plato borrowed Heraclitus' term: flux. It seems to fit. James borrowed it
too. And then there is Quality itself: an object? I think not. Look up
Prisig talking about universals and particulars in ZAMM.
This would be about twice as long if Inserted all the appropriate IMO's, so
it will have to do as it is.
Yours typically puzzled about the lot of you,
Pzeph
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST