From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 16:27:31 GMT
Hi Matt
10 Nov. you spaketh:
> DMB continued:
> I think everybody here can plainly see that Rorty uses the terms
> "intersubjective agreement" and that Pirsig is critical of SOM because
> it relegates things like truth to the merely subjective, making them
> not quite real. I'm asking you to explain the difference.
> Matt:
> "Subjective" only gains its philosophical significance (and its evil
> tag "merely") by contrasting to "objective". Saying that somebody is
> being "subjective" means you are implying that what he is asserting is
> only _his_ opinion. By contrast, when somebody is being "objective,"
> they are asserting the _world's_ opinion. And because the world is
> the ultimate arbiter, the world's opinion is as good as gold.
> But Rorty and Pirsig reject these contrasting terms, do they not? So
> what's left?
I have noticed the endless Rorty debate, but haven't managed find a
point of entrance, this however looks familiar. I don't know about
Rorty, but Pirsig not only rejects "these contrasting terms", but the
SOM.
> Come to think of it, what do _you_ think is left after we've diced
> "objective"?
The "subjective" remains, but Phaedrus rejected that one too. THAT is
something to be heeded by many Pirsigeans too .... judging by some
annotations in Lila's Child even Pirsig isn't always true to himself.
> Rorty's answer is that, yes, we have collective subjectivity (never
> have I really denied it as you seem to imply). But Rorty's not sure
> what more we are supposed to hope for. After all, its only our
> opinions, our assertions, our statements about truth and falsity. The
> world doesn't make statements or have opinions.
That opinions emanates from human beings is a truism, but they
claim that they are inspired by ...God, by nature, by intuition ....by
EXPERIENCE! so that's hardly an argument.
> Collective subjectivity doesn't leave us in a pit of despair,
It leaves us one notch lower on the value scale of the MOQ, but I don't
know if you recognize it?. "Subjectivity" (drop the collective) is the
social level seen from intellect's value of an objective reality - TRUTH -
independent of what people think about it.
> no more
> than Pirsig's redescription of causation into pre-conditional
> valuation changes what rocks do. At the level of generality that
> philosophers play at, all we can try and come up with are descriptions
> of the way we behave.
Wait a moment Matt! Phaedrus rejected the S/O METAPHYSICS (the
notion of an objective yet inaccessible reality that we only can come
up with descriptions of ...and launched a new world order where the
metaphysical slash isn't between subjectivity and objectivity, but
between Dynamic and Static Value. About the static universe we can
know a lot. You may not subscribe to the MOQ, but please give unto
the Caesar ....etc.
> Pragmatists are just betting that our
> description, ridding itself of the image of Nature having Opinions,
> works better and causes fewer descriptive problems.
This sounds more like the description of materialism than
pragmatism, but leave it alone
> Its not the case
> that Rorty is saying that nobody's opinion is real, are all _merely_
> subjective, but rather that everybody's opinion is real, its just that
> some people's opinions are more justified than others.
"Justified"? By what criterion? It shouldn't happen to be Value? Allow
me to continue my exposition. My so-called SOL-interpretation is the
only one that can save the MOQ from this subjective dilemma you
invoke. As told, P. rejected the S/O metaphysics and launched a
Quality Metaphysics in which intellect is seen as a STATIC level - not
the mind realm where thoughts and/or ideas slosh around.
> And since I read this next quote as Pirsig endorsing intersubjective
> agreement, what do you think it means?
> The quote, from Lila's Child, note 97, p. 526:
> "It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although
> 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually
> 'common sense' which is A SET OF IDEAS, has to come first. This
> 'common sense' is arrived at through a web of SOCIALLY APPROVED
> EVALUATIONS of various alternatives. The key term here is
> 'evaluation', i.e. quality decisions. The fundamental reality is not
> the common sense or the objects and laws approved of by common sense
> but the approval itself and the quality that leads to it."
I understand that you use this quote. That everything is "ideas"
Protagoras' and why the Sophists were the enemies of Socrates who
represented the coming of an objective truth ...and why young
Phaedrus was sympathetic for the said Sophists, they represented the
level below his own enemy Socrates ....but it is here that Pirsig as the
MOQ father should have heeded the "danger" he describes in LILA,
namely that of intellect joining biology to fight society. Here - in the
Pirsig annotation - the Quality "level" joins Society to fight Intellect
and that is foul play. Intellect's value of an objective TRUTH must
prevail.
Sincerely
Bo
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 : Sat Nov 15 2003 - 16:33:21 GMT