On 24 Dec 2000, at 4:30, gmbbradford@netscape.net wrote:
> I think laughter is a possible example of something Pirsig would claim
> an SOMist would believe is unreal, but perhaps the more internalized,
> generalized concept of humour is a better example. Bodvar, you said
> that laughter as expression is subjective, but it's just as objective
> as the facial expressions accompanying laughter. One is sound and the
> other is sight; both can be objectively verified by people and
> recorded by instruments.
Hi Glenn.
It was of course exactly what I intended to say, but thanks for
pointing it out.
> So what is SOM, according to Pirsig? As far as I can tell, it comes in
> three flavors.
> 1) When Pirsig says that everything, according to SOM, is either a
> subject or an object, he sometimes takes this to mean only substance.
> For some arguments he can get away with this, and he uses this
> definition wherever he can, because it makes the current metaphysics
> seem the most extreme and ridiculous.
A most precise observation, and also what I meant to say. What is
covered by the inorganic and intellectual levels of the Quality
Metaphysics are either AN object or A subject, but the myriad of
phenomenon that are covered by the middle biological and social
levels have the subjective and objective split in their midst - in SOM
that is - but as there (according to Struan) is no need for any
MOQish levels - as well as there is no SOM - not much can be
said.
> 2) When he can't do this, he makes SOM define reality to include only
> what science has blessed as real. It's this definition of SOM Pirsig
> usually adheres to. So for example, even though gravity is neither
> subject nor object (substance), the subject/object metaphysics says
> it's real because science says so. He also takes the approach that if
> science hasn't weighed in on a subject, even if it's a subject science
> has no business speaking about, then the subject is not real. Also,
> depending on the argument he's making, what constitutes science
> varies. Sometimes it's limited to physics. Sometimes it includes
> anthropology. Sometimes he equates being scientific with simply being
> rational or objective.
> 3) But even this doesn't suffice to cover it. Sometimes SOM refers to
> the subjective/objective split, the belief that a thing is either one
> or the other and the twain shall never meet. In this version of SOM,
> you believe that subjective things are real, perhaps more so, than
> objective things, but you are forever saddled with the vexing
> mind/body problem and the inevitable slippage into solipsism, which
> even dualists find distasteful. Pirsig is a recovering SOMist of this
> flavor, and is not too critical of it, even though he suffered mental
> illness struggling over its consequences.
I find this a good summary. Please note that Pirsig occasionally
refer to the SOM as a "substance metaphysics".
> So SOM is a hodgepodge of things. I spoke about my confusion of it in
> a post in the MF during the month SOM was discussed as a strawman. I
> certainly agree with Struan that SOM is a strawman. I think the
> current western metaphysical belief system is not captured accurately
> by SOM. 1 and 2 are too narrow and 3 is clearly a minority position
> (except in this forum). The closest representation lies somewhere
> between flavors 2 and 3. My opinion is that western culture could
> stand being nudged toward 3 a little bit more, to the extent that
> nearly all philosophy students would agree that humour is real.
The Western metaphysical belief is covered by SOM in either its
"object/matter/substance" guise or in its subject/mind/spiritual
guise. Hodgepodge it truly is because it is glaringly wrong,
whatever of these two parties are embraced the "empire hits back"
by imposing a counterpart ....and you are back in the mire again.
Nudged towards 3, yes, as far as Phaedrus even. I agree with your
above comment
> Pirsig is a recovering SOMist of this
> flavor, and is not too critical of it, even though he suffered
> mental illness struggling over its consequences.
This point I have made over and over again. SOM carried to its
extreme means solipsism. In a sense the QM starts from an
extreme "subjective" position. When I said that Struan of course
struck down and made a great show of me admitting that the
Quality Metaphysics is subjective.
> What is also troubling is that I think SOM is intentionally
> misrepresented, and so in this I also agree with Struan. I think this
> because Pirsig is too smart to make such errors and because he
> identifies with the Sophists and their methods of rhetoric.
Misrepresented often, but if we admit that there IS a metaphysics
behind our perception - however much "men in streets" we are - it
comes closest to some variant of the SOM.
Thanks Glenn for a calm voice .
Bodvar
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 - 16:00:55 BST