Many thanks Struan.
The, 'False dichotomy' of SOM is prevalent.
As an established philosophical perspective i feel we both agree it to be
most real.
One can hardly avoid it, and this does not suggest that one may become
obsessed by it?
Please be fair Struan!
I require air to live, i can hardly be expected to be anything put pleased
there to be an adequate supply of the stuff?
My culture is immersed in SOM, i have to live with it.
Your rejection of the split is a linguistic one.
At the same time, your analysis is subject/object predicated.
Pirsig's rejection of the split is a metaphysical one.
Language itself is an evolving pattern of values, predominantly intellectual
but having social roots, that develops in response to something prior to any
metaphysical split, i.e. Dynamic Quality.
If quality is flavoured in a 'family of resemblance's' as you suggest, then
it is but a small, and i feel you will discover, enlightening step, to view
the family of resemblance's as fleeting constructs extruded from immediate
experience, i.e. Quality.
Your working list may end where it will, but it will begin with Quality.
Regards,
Squonk.
In a message dated 12/12/01 11:37:10 AM GMT Standard Time, struan@clara.co.uk
writes:
<< Subj: MD Quality defined
Date: 12/12/01 11:37:10 AM GMT Standard Time
From: struan@clara.co.uk (Struan Hellier)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Greetings,
SQUONK:
"I fear you are suggesting a merely subjective aesthetic when you write,
'Quality is the degree to which excellence pertains.'
Alternatively, you may contend that Quality is objective, in which case,
perhaps you could define it for me?"
I think the subject object distinction you have set up here is a false
dichotomy, Squonk. Quality is not a 'thing', which resides outside of
me, nor a concept within me. It is a *relationship*. To illustrate this,
imagine dipping your hand into cold water having just been out throwing
snowballs. This will be a reasonable quality experience, as the water
will feel tepid. Now do the same having just had a very hot bath. The
quality of the experience will be lower as the water will feel very cold
indeed. The quality of that experience has been defined, neither by the
water nor by yourself, but by the relationship between the water and
yourself. To ask whether the quality is subjective or objective simply
misses the point.
My non-fatuous answer to defining quality revolves around the
Wittgensteinian notion of 'family resemblances' where a number of
features taken together form the definition, though no single feature is
necessarily present in itself. Thus we could ask whether it (by it, I
mean an action, relationship, thing, concept etc) 1) contributes to our
understanding of truth 2) our happiness 3) our knowledge 4) is
benevolent 5) morally excellent 6) attractive 7) functional 8)
aesthetically pleasing etc. Note that I do not present this as a final
list (or even a working list); I am merely indicating the approach.
Looking for a single, discrete definition for something like quality is
never going to be satisfactory and can lead one on all sorts of wild
goose chases. One may even write a couple of novels about it if one is
not careful. :-)
Bo tells us that 'it's the leaving the subject/object fixation which is
the great achievement', and he is right to the extent that unless you
can stop being fixated by the mythical SOM, you will continue to invent
fatuous questions and be unduly obsessed by false dichotomies.
Struan
>>
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 - 16:01:41 BST