From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 16:43:21 BST
Hi Platt,
You said:
In SOM, a fact is often characterized as objective. The American
Heritage Dictionary (which Pirsig apparently uses) defines a fact as:
"Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed." It's also
defined as: "Something believed to be true or real."
This makes 'fact' something which operates at the social level (ie
'demonstrated' (to whom by whom?) or 'believed' (by whom?)), which seems
reasonable to me.
You said:
In the MoQ, truth and facts are characterized as high quality intellectual
patterns of value, or if preferred, high value intellectual patterns of
quality. In either case, a fact is characterized as subjective.
I suspect that there are no 'facts' at the fourth level (intellectual
level) - the creativity is all in the interpretation. So, for example, there
was no dispute about the 'facts' between Copernicus and the Ptolemists (they
both accepted the data provided by Kepler and Brahe) - the question was
about meaning and interpretation. Perhaps 'facts' are simply social level
phenomena (that which is generally accepted) whereas the governing
interpretation (which gives the facts meaning) is what resides at the higher
level. So, on this interpretation, 'facts' are the static latches of social
patterns of awareness. (Whether that counts as intellectual or not gets us
back into the current argument about how to make a distinction. I think my
views on that are pretty clear!!)
You said:
Be that as it may, the basic difference I see is that in SOM, facts are
usually held to be morally neutral, while in the MoQ they are always
characterized as possessing a moral element, i.e., an intellectual
pattern. Do you agree? Do you see a different difference?
I do agree with that. One of the things I most like about the MoQ is the
thorough-going 'moralisation' of all patterns. Not sure I agree that 'moral
element' equals 'intellectual pattern' though. Are you sure that's what you
meant?
This quote sums up why I think we need to be more critical of (SOM-derived)
language about 'fact', especially when it is related to scientific
endeavours.
POLYWATER, as defined by the Penguin Dictionary of Science, 1942-1986):
!st, 2nd, 3rd editions: No entry
4th edition, 1971: Anomalous water, name suggested for a form of water
which can be prepared by condensing ordinatry water in fine quartz or glass
capillary tubes. Polywater has a density of about 1.4gm per cc and remains
stable up to about 500 degrees Centigrade. It also has a higher viscosity
than ordinary water.
5th edition, 1979: Anomalous water. A reported form of water differing in
properties...from normal water.
6th edition, 1986: Anomalous water...it is now accepted that these
properties were due to...impurities rather than to any differences in the
molecular structure of the water itself.
(From 'Science and Philosophy', Derek Gjertsen)
Can you think of any 'facts' which are not able to be characterised as
social level static latches? I do think this is an interesting question....
Sam
The actual outlook is very dark, and any serious thought should start from
that fact. (George Orwell)
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 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 16:40:51 BST