From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 21:06:49 BST
Hi Squonk,
I'm entirely sympathetic to your aesthetic emphasis of the MOQ. I think
you're on to something very important, but find your explanations hard
to follow. For example:
> There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ.
> Therefore, there cannot be any objectivity, or subjectivity either.
There are plenty of subjects and objects in the MOQ. Pirsig admits as
much. One can barely utter a sentence without employing subjects and
objects. Our language is fundamentally based on the S/O split. I don't
think denying this is helpful in promoting understanding of the MOQ.
squonk: Hello Platt, If you have read my review of Matt's last essay you will
have seen that i accept what you are saying.
I feel we can still use old words in new contexts? If one reads Spinoza along
side Descartes, for example, it can be a little unnerving to discover that
Spinoza is using a different description of 'attribute' than Descartes. For
Spinoza, an attribute inheres in one being - God or nature. For Descartes,
attributes are of Mind or Matter, or God.
Spinoza and Plotinus are a little like the MoQ in this regard, as both
Spinoza and Plotinus view the One as being that which is real. Everything else is an
aspect of the One and are therefore in a continuum.
As you know, and as i admire you i will not insult you by repeating that the
One of Pirsig has two attributes - static and Dynamic. Therefore, subjects and
objects in the MoQ must be talked about in new ways, that of Dynamic and
static. All patterns are in the continuum; subjects and objects are linked.
> So, a search for objectivity is futile, and supposing subjective quality
> presupposes a subject.
Objectivity, as Steve has eloquently pointed out, is based on
measurement. Far from being futile, measurement (objectivity) is the
basis of science which has brought untold benefits to mankind.
squonk: Whatever unit you ever take must be relative to something else. In
his history of Western philosophy, Bertrand Russell reminds us that this was
known at the birth of geometry. Therefore, it must be asserted that measurement
is an invention, and what is more, it is an invention of the human intellect.
One could argue that inventions of the Human intellect are subjective, but as
there are no subjects and objects in the MoQ, we must say they are intellectual
patterns of value instead.
I agree measurement is beneficial, but i would say measurement is an art. If
you wish to measure rotation, you use another tool - radians for example
(degrees per second).
1.
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 Aug 05 2003 - 21:07:46 BST