Bo,
This is an un-list related response to a comment you made during the MF
S/O discussion a while back. First, I didn't have much further to add to
my conjecture (a la Wilbur) that SQ could be S/O split down the middle
and second I'm trying to keep quiet when I have nothing meaningful to
say.
I've run across something that I'd like your take on because I think it
might tie into both my conjecture and your SOLAQI concept.
Here is a highly paraphased quote (by a well known philosopher) which I
think talks about the contents or, or types, or the patterns of value
that might rise to or be present in the Intellect or the MoQ
intellectual level.
" ... the inmates..[of the Intellectual Level].. are.. theoretical
systems; are problems and problem situations. And I will argue that the
most important inmates ...are critical arguments, and...the [current]
state of these critical arguments; and, of course, the contents of
journals, books, and libraries." [ which contain both the historic
evolution and the published state of these "inmates"] [my additions]
Then he insists that these "inmates" have an "independent existence"
from "subjective mental states" which his thesis opponents usually say
that all these entities are. And further more, first and foremost, he
claims these "inmates" are objective. Or as he says in his lead to his
1967 essay: Knowledge: Subjective vs Objective:
..we may distinguish the following three worlds,[or levels, he missed
one] or universes: first, the world of physical objects
[inorganic/organic patterns of value] of of physical states; secondly,
the world of consciousness, or mental states [prerequisite for social
values] or perhaps of behavioural dispositions to act; and thirdly, the
world of objective contents of thoughts, especially of scientific and
poetic thoughts and works of art."
So if you claim that the theoretical system, SOM or SOL, is an "inmate"
of the intellectural level I would agree. Even that it is the largest or
most prevalent system, I agree. But if you claim that it is or was "all"
of the intellect or theoretical systems prior to the MoQ, I must
respectfully disagree.
But that is beside the point I'm trying to make here. Pirsig circles all
the S&O theories, which he labels SOM, and then in relating them to the
MoQ claims that the relationship is that the top two levels are
subjective and the bottom two are objective.
But we can see that there is at least one SOMer [and he refers others]
that argues, in terms that seem to agree quite well with Pirsig on the
contents of the Intellect, but disagrees that ,in part, some of it's
content is objective.
I would argue that the following sentence is an intellectural pattern of
value. And further that it is objective, subjective, empirical, and
might even comply with the bulk of theory proposed by the MoQ.
"I know 1+1=2"
Or in other words,
"I know, [based on my experiences, thinking about my experiences of
mathematical theories, and memory of thoses experiences, and books,
journals, etc] that [1+1=2] are a part of the contents of my thoughts."
The claim "I know" I will admit is subjective. Subject to all the
foibles,frailities, and failures of human perception, thoughts, and
reasoning. But you will have to admit that surely the theoretical
systems that allow me to claim or try to describe how it is "I know"
surely rise to the Intellectual level. Thus "I know" is a subjective
intellectural pattern of value.
How is it then that,[1+1=2], a very old "critical intellectual argument"
and the object of the claim "I know" is 'subjective" while thoughts,
yet somehow "objective" if I scrawl them on a piece of paper? They are
not. They are "objective" irrespective of location. Thus can be called
objective intellectual patterns of value.
Now before you go off the deep end and tell me that I'm destroying the
MoQ. First, let me assure you that I'm very sure this is not what
Pirsig believes or says is the relationship between SOM and MoQ. Second,
this conjecture only applies to static quality or the levels and has
nothing to do with the primary DQ/SQ split which is still prior to, and
source of subjects and objects. And third, if we could somehow move our
thoughts out of SO land and into Quality land it cease to be an issue.
But as we have all discovered it ain't easy.
Still lost in Popperland.
3WD
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 - 16:01:29 BST