Bodvar
I knew it was a mistake to use the words subjective and objective
because they inevitably set off alarm bells and leave you open to the
dreaded attack - bah you're stuck in the som!
But being stuck in the som is precisely the situation we're trying to
escape from. Currently the two schools of thought on the subject are
split along precisely these lines. You have the people who like to
elaborate on the aesthetic side, who see Dynamic Quality as intuition,
beauty, etc and you have those who only want to say it is something to
do with quantum phenomena. The subject-object metaphysics is perfectly
aware of these concepts but it says that aesthetics are subjective and
matter is objective. As long as you focus on one side at the exclusion
of the other you're still perpetuating the myth.
Suppose you are trying to convince someone of the MoQ. It's quite easy
to show that there is something like value or art that can't be
explained rationally. However people usually just dismiss that as
subjectivity. To demonstrate that value is not subjective you have to
prove that it exists outside of the subject. And in the som the only
place that isn't subject-territory is the world of objects, specifically
matter.
If you can prove (in an som context) that DQ exists in both the subject
and the object then the subject-object metaphysics collapses, because in
the subject-object metaphysics you cannot have a phenomenon that exists
in both categories - and the only solution to it is to conclude that the
categories are wrong.
It's not a test balloon. It's a line of reasoning that - if you could
fill in the blanks - disproves the som and proves the moq. Well, show me
another line of argument if you've got one, but I haven't seen it yet.
Diana
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST