> Stephen:
> The static latch that is especially needed is a clear
> explanation of why Quality is NOT emotivism. Since
> the transcending of the subject-object dualism is
> the foundation of the whole idea of Quality, I think
> that anyone attempting to understand it must first
> understand why Quality is not "just what you like".
Punching the word "like" into the MOQBL, you get this Magic-Paragraph:
"What holds a person together is his patterns of likes and dislikes, and what
holds a society together is a pattern of likes and dislikes. And what holds the
whole world together is patterns of likes and dislikes. History is just
abstracted from biography. And so are all the social sciences. In the past
anthropology has been centered around collective objects and I'm interested in
probing around to see if it can be better said in terms of individual values.
I've just had feelings that maybe the ultimate truth about the world isn't
history or sociology but biography. Lila - 176"
So I believe that what we're really facing is a debate, not over "emotivism" or
"subject-object dualism", but just good-ol-fashioned _subjectivism_.
Lookup "subjectivism" in the MOQBL and you get this:
"The low value that can be derived from sitting on a hot stove is obviously an
experience even though it is not an object and even though it is not subjective.
The low value comes first, then the subjective thoughts that include such things
as stove and heat and pain come second. The value is the reality that brings the
thoughts to mind. Lila - 99"
So now we're talking about physical responses. Is that what we're looking for?
I'll add a M-P from my Frank Herbert BL:
"There's nothing concerning ourselves about which we can be truly objective
except our own physical responses." (!!!)
So, is man just a creature that reacts and responds... is that what history is
made up of? Many a fine philosopher has made the case that that is -exactly-
what the world is... Isn't Emotion the quintessential reaction to the world?
So what does Pirsig have to say about Emotion?
"You can't live on just groovy emotions alone. You have to work with the
underlying form of the universe too, the laws of nature which, when understood,
can make work easier, sickness rarer, and famine almost absent. ZMM - 293"
Use this M-P, and no one can attack you with "Pirsig just preaches 'do whatever
you like'!". Obviously, Pirsig supports a realistic view of the world (yet, he
could have stated the point more professionally and clearly... that's why the
M-P gets only a Significance rating of "2"... I hope we can get some "9"s on
this topic from the work of this group).
So now you're bulletproof. Your author is a realist. And he's already given
you a bridge to higher discussion with: "The value is the reality that brings
the thoughts to mind." stated earlier.
But if you can go one step further, by taking the word "law" and going to the
MOQBL you get:
"If life is to be explained on the basis of physical laws, then the overwhelming
evidence that life deliberately works around these laws cannot be ignored.
Lila - 143"
A Magic-Paragraph of 9. And a topic truly -worthy- of human ponderance and
discussion. Life thumbing its nose at Law. Wow... now that's what -philosophy-
is all about. This is so much more than mere subjectivism now, isn't it?
In the MOQBL, keep Law at the center, but put the mouse over Life, and you'll
see the entries that contain both words. You could choose any one to continue
the discussion, but I grabbed this one:
"Patterns of life do not change solely in accord with causative 'mechanisms' or
'programs' or blind operations of physical laws. They do not just change
valuelessly. They change in ways that evade, override, and circumvent these
laws. The patterns of life are constantly evolving in response to something
'better' than that which these laws have to offer. Lila - 143-144"
Better. Quality. Here we are... 6 steps, from Like to Quality.
That's why I built the MOQBL... because a single catechism will never be enough.
This is the meta-catechism.
Is this the end of the debate?... definitely, no. Between Life and Law, there
are over 20 M-Ps in the MOQBL alone... great jump-off points. And you can have
great arguments about any point made along the way (and -you- will have over 100
Pirsig quotes to back you up).
We have made Progress. Now you understand why I believe we should be in the
business of writing Magic-Paragraphs.
That is the center around which my whole work revolves. A new theory of
knowledge.
Christopher Galtenberg
Galtenberg Software Think-Tank
www.galtenberg.net
P.S. where you can read an essay on "Magic Paragraphs" :)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:25 BST