From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 21 2005 - 21:57:47 BST
Platt,
Platt said:
Just so, any reality based on the subject/object split (SOM) is going to be
inconsistent or incomplete. Why? Because it makes no provision for values.
The proof? Even though values cannot be defined and thus are unacceptable to
SOM, a world without values would be unrecognizable. We couldn’t survive
long unless we intuitively knew some things are better than others.
Matt:
I agree with you, Platt, that Bo's SOL-MoQ isn't all that complicated. Its
slightly on the less side of exactly what Pirsig's saying, as far as I can
tell. But that's not why I'm writing.
When you say that "any reality based on the subject/object split is going to
be inconsistent or incomplete" "because it makes no provision for values," I
think you're wrong. I think its this particular issue that got, way back in
the day, Struan Hellier's panties in a bunch most often. I think Pirsig
makes a mistake if he says that SOM leaves out values. Much like my
redescription of the fall of positivism recently, I think SOM _does_ include
values, it just doesn't produce consequences that look any good to us. A
world without values _would_ be unrecognizable, but that should be your
first indication that nobody has ever seriously suggested it. What SOM says
is that values exist in someone's mind. Pirsig's description of the S/O
Dilemma in ZMM is a good description of what happens with SOM that he
doesn't like. It says values are subjective, that they are "whatever you
like," and therefore of little consequence. This is A. J. Ayer's logical
positivist ethical doctrine of emotivism (it is truly irony's twisted sense
of humor that Struan should accuse the _MoQ_ of being emotivist). There is
no rational reason to believe any particular value or moral rule because
they are all just irrational impulses in your head. Now _that_ just sounds
dumb, and very few people became emotivists. The consequence of emotivism
was another big reason why people started dismantling positivism in the
academy. We do believe things for very important reasons. They aren't just
impules. Pirsig's MoQ tries to rearrange philosophy's furniture to allow
that intuition about the way we function.
But that doesn't mean SOM said values don't exist, or they didn't place them
anywhere, or whatever. That cuts a little too quickly as a rejection of SOM
and makes SOM look like a strawman. SOM _isn't_ a strawman, but,
concurrently, it is a also bit more fierce than many of us here give it
credit for.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 : Tue Jun 21 2005 - 22:01:42 BST