On 30 Apr 2002 at 9:30, 3dwavedave wrote:
(to Elliot)
> 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.
(snip)
> 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?
Wavedave, Elliot and Group
The opening excerpt from the "companion" may sound a bit forbidding,
but I understand that the pragmatic part means a lot to you. I smiled a
little when reaching the above paragraph as it reminded me of the
famous throne thread from when we were young (!) and innocent and
didn't know how problematic everybody else could make the wonderful
Quality idea. (sob)
> 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.
This sounds a little awkward to me. According to the SOM there is the
material world and a mind-world that ...gives names to all the animals ..
(read: chairs and doors), but according to the MOQ the world IS the
static aggregate and the social and intellectual levels aren't less real
than the inorganic and biological organic ones ...something your
"reflective"term indicates.
To say that the value of artifacts are "...reflective of the social and
intellectual memory component of individuals and societies" is merely a
long-winded way of saying that they exist in our minds (the social
"memory component" must necessarily be in the minds of the
constituent individuals) and we are back in SOM. Maybe you merely
want to point to the social level as a watershed where an -um- mental
element enters the Q-sequence (the reason why Pirsig says that the
social and intellectual levels corresponds to SOM's "subjective"). Is that
so?
Yet, I can't see how one avoids ending up in the subject/object impasse
which the MOQ is supposed to replace: Inorganic and biological as
external, but by the social level the evolution suddenly turns internal.
This is why I "push" the SOL interpretation. ...which says that the social
movement does not mean any metaphysical shift into the heads of
people, but merely that the Q-onion gets another value layer ..as it got
another by intellectual value.
You continued:
> .. 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'.
I see why you are so keen on pragmatism, but does it really help?
> 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.
Taking about values a value? A sinking feeling engulfs me ...of being
back on familiar ground where everything is "intellct" - words - hot air.
No please, this CAN'T be the MOQ that I know.
THIS is:
Reality is the said four recognized levels but DQ has not gone away so
the world is constantly "under construction". There is no particular
human or - worse - mental component to it (that is reverting to SOM)
the social development could have found its vehicle with some other
life form, and it's not a subjective mind that experiences objective
reality from within, but DYNAMIC focus that roams the static "ladder",
and when on a rung everything is that rung's value. In the days when
social value dominated existence the chair of the almighty found forms
that only conveyed status (a throne). At the biological level no such
thing is recognized. In dire circumstances you make up a fire of a gilded
throne to stay alive - you may even burn money bills - which shows how
focus shifts.
For Elliot:
This answers the Quality Event question. DYNAMIC focus shifts
between the static levels and constantly creates the world by one
moment sensing existence from biology, the next feeling it (emotions)
from society and then reasoning about it from intellect.
In my opinion ...as always.
Bo
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 - 16:02:14 BST