Elliot, All
You asked:
> But i realized that i dont understand the quality event as well as i thought i
> did. How does Quality and not qualities define a chair as opposed to a door?
The first step is to understand and accept that the MoQ's pragmatic
roots takes "first principles and axioms as hypothetical, warranted by
explanatory competence; substitutes multiform argumentation for linear
inference; and recognizes the importance of the scientific community's
stress on the primacy of method and the fallibility of belief." [ snip
from start of "pragmatism" entry in Blackwell's , A Companion to
Metaphysics]. Pirsig sums this up in his "the pencil, is mightier than a
pen" quote. Once that caveate is made, you then can proceed on using the
general rules of the MoQ to explain "chair" and "door" using multiple
arguments about their particular values, their similarities and
differences, and how they evolved and are evolving.
To start with both "a chair" and "a door" are a part of Quality. A part
of overall reality. Both are an "ongoing series of dynamic events" which
we can experience, can think about, and explain to each other,using the
MoQ, describing their stable patterns of value or static qualities
experienced. Of course the most obvious,easiest, and most likely for us
to explain and agree upon are their inorganic qualities, their physical
values. Size, shape, physical location, materials, structural
properties, color etc. If they happened to be made of wood, as is often
the case, we could go on to discuss their biological qualities or
organic values and most probably come to close agreement on those values
too. At this point we arrive at a problem area, at what Wilber calls,
"artifacts", specifically human artifacts, and their interrelationship
with the higher levels of value. This wicket can be as sticky as you
want to make it.
Take "chair" for example, if we stop at the physical or even the
biological level, neither of us might be perfectly comfortable that we
have fully captured it's qualities or values. What about its
relationship to the human form, its ergonomic values? Is it comfortable?
Or what about its social values, is it Cinderella's stool or the
Prince's throne? What about it's economic value? How much is it worth?
Are these values inherent in the "chair" or are they inherent in "you"
or "me"? How do we know ? What difference does it make?
My take would be that social and intellectural values of "artifacts" are
not inherent in them but are reflective of them. They are part of the
"memory component" of individuals and societies. But that once this has
been said it is of great practical value to treat these patterns of
values "as if" they were inherent in the 'chair'. Talking about the
social values of "the chair" is in itself of a pattern value.
Archeologists do it all the time with great advantage in explaining
cultures and their evolution.
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 - 16:02:12 BST