Hi everybody,
yesterday I was thinking a bit about the above things while waiting for a
concert to start, and I have the following problem:
Pirsig solves the question wether quality is s.t. objective or subjective
by putting quality so to say in front of it. Subjects en objects both
emerge from Quality, which sounds ok
But what is the difference between this and putting quality so to say
behind S/O; in saying that Quality emerges from the continuing interaction
between subjects and objects? This neither doesn't require one to position
quality in either subjects or objects.
In both options, Q is neither absolutely objective nor absolutely
subjective. So why the apparent preference for putting Quality as the
"primary" concept, from which objects and subjects emerge? I could not
think af any argument in favour of (either!) position...
The only thing I tentatively supposed, was that it's a matter of taste
(NB, what one finds qualitatively superior) - some people prefer a sort of
holistic worldview where there has to be ONE concept 'at the heart of it
all', so to say. This seems to be a driving force for holding that Quality
is primary. Some people (many in the anglophone philosophical
tradition) prefer a DUALISTIC world view, with real existing objects in
the world at the one hand and with real existing subjects (people) on the
other hand.
But furthermore: does it really matter in daily life? Quality is something
we experience all the time; you could almost say it comes hand in hand
with experience. Experience always comes with a certain quality to it. And
I don't see a problem in the fact that we do not always agree with what
has quality. Why would we want to absolutely determine wat has quality and
what does not, and where it is placed?
Quality is per definition a
metaphysical concept (you can't see it in itself, you can't measure it
etc.) but what does that matter? It doesn't prevent us from continually
experiencing Quality - luckily, for it gives one great depth, joy, sorrow,
etc etc in life! One might call Quality a "metaphysical experience", which
could give the whole discussion a different turn.
Perhaps that is why we all are so obsessed with Quality and where it is to
be found - because it is such a central part of our lives. Yet it is hard
to get hold of when speaking about it - as we also experience all the
time, also in the MOQ forum :o) Quality gives us a glimpse of something
"not of this world" (especially when it now and then sends shivers down
one's spines - in the concert which I heard after thinking about this
all for example), yet it is unquestionably bound to this world we live
in...
In the next weeks I will hopefully rceieve an ordered book via mail on
th philosopher Theodor W. Adorno, called "Negative dialectics and the
metaphysical experience - on Adorno's philosophy of enlightenment". I have
already read s.t. of this philosopher, and its very fascinating in view of
the whole problem of SOM and Quality. He takes an extremely nuanced (alas
also difficult) stance in this tricky business, and I think you will all
be interested!
I'll keep you updated,
yours
Thomas
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST