From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Aug 22 2004 - 14:52:36 BST
Hi MSH:
It's a pleasure to say I agree with you 100 percent on this issue.
Platt
> On 20 Aug 2004 at 22:23, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
> What I'm amazed by, given that this is an MOQ discussion board that
> so many people defend the SOM logic.
>
> msh says:
> Well, I guess we'll have to call this particular formulation of
> dismissal a "Turnerism." Except, when Paul used it, I agreed: You
> can't deny that Quality is the cause of both subjects and objects,
> and still be talking about the MOQ.
>
> However, Ian and others here seem to be saying that logic and
> science, because they refrain from making "value" judgements, are
> themselves of no value. I respectfully argue that Pirsig himself
> does not believe this. There are countless passages in both ZMM and
> LILA where he uses science and logic to develop and support his
> ideas. The MOQ itself is a perfectly logical construction absorbing
> and expanding the ideas of physics, evolutionary biology, and
> anthropology, to name a few.
>
> So, I think it's a mistake to think that the MOQ somehow negates
> logic and science. Rather, the evaluative limitations of scientific
> and logical thinking are brought to light, and the MOQ is offered as
> a better (of higher explanatory Quality) but inclusive alternative to SOM.
> That the MOQ includes rather than dismisses SOM can be seen from these
> passages (and Pirsig quotes) from Ant McWatt's dissertation:
>
> "A significant contrast is constructed by Pirsig between ‘subject-
> object metaphysics’ (SOM) and the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ). As
> discussed in Chapter One, the principal reason for the development of the
> MOQ was to revise the metaphysical foundations of American anthropology
> which had developed from the ‘objective’ functionalist approach of Franz
> Boas. ‘This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality is
> to trash all subject-object thought but that’s not true’ (Pirsig, 1991,
> p.103). It appears that Pirsig asserts this because the MOQ is constructed
> as a system that places SOM in a wider metaphysical context rather than
> rejecting the system wholesale. (McWatt 3.0)"
>
> And this, from Lila's Child RMP Annotation 4, where Dan Glover points out:
> "... subjects and objects are a species of the MOQ but no longer the top
> division of a presumed metaphysics. The presumed metaphysics of Western
> culture (SOM) has now been embedded in a larger system (MOQ) with a much
> greater resulting clarity that could be obtained using either system of
> thought by itself."
>
> Here's Pirsig's response:
> "... I began to see it’s not necessary to get rid of them [subjects
> and objects] because the MOQ can encase them neatly within its
> structure - the upper two levels being subjective, and the lower two,
> objective. Still later I saw that the subject-object distinction is very
> useful for sharply distinguishing between biological and social levels...
> At present, I don’t see that the terms ‘subject’ and ‘object’ need to be
> dropped, as long as we remember they are just levels of value, not
> expressions of independent scientific reality."
>
> I think Platt is right: the MOQ in no way requires us to abandon
> logic, (or science or even SOM), and the short quote he provides from
> LILA-8 is right on:
>
> "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with
> experience, and economy of explanation."
>
> This is, to me, an important issue, so thanks in advance to all for
> any thoughtful comments.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 22 2004 - 15:06:01 BST