From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2004 - 18:19:54 GMT
Hi Matt,
> What is objectivity?
I think I probably use this word in at least two ways. One is like Platt's
definition, 'Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived
without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations,'
which is fine for colloquial use without getting into what is meant by facts
versus interpretations.
As an MOQist I can converse with SOMers and people who are not
philosophically aware without misunderstandings by making the transformation
(to use Bo's language) of SOM usage of objectivity and subjectivity that
Pirsig suggested in the SODV paper. Objective in SOM refers to descriptions
of sensory data corresponding to primary and secondary qualities of material
substance. Translating to MOQ usage, objectivity becomes a reference to
inorganic and biological patterns of value. No information that the SOMer
tries to convey is lost in the translation except for his questionable
metaphysical assumptions.
However, I don't think the transformation works perfectly in the case of
intellectual patterns like "1+2=3" for example, since most people would
consider this an objective fact. MOQers would consider "1+2=3" an
intellectual pattern of value and, thus, subjective by Pirsig's SODV
categorization. So, in conversations with SOMers, I translate some
intellectual patterns of value as objective in the "without distortion by
personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" sense. This is an
accurate description so long as I am among those who will make the same
interpretation.
The second use of objective/subjective is a distinction between what is real
and apparent. It is this usage that MOQers would like to get rid of
entirely since it rules out values. In SODV, Pirsig attempts to reclaim the
terms (as described in the previous paragraphs) in a way that SOMers would
probably conclude is just two types of subjectivity by their premises. But
in the MOQ where experience is reality, such appearance/reality distinctions
are dissolved. Matt, I say that knowing that you still see Pirsig as playing
appearance/reality games, but I disagree.
> What is harmony?
Harmony isn't an important term in my philosophical wanderings. But to
throw in my $.02, I would say that it could refer to a way discussing
intellectual quality. We rate ideas on a true/false scale of betterness
which is related to a scale of a good/bad fit with other ideas that we
value. It is this latter scale to which harmony may apply. Harmonious may
also may simply be a synonym for pleasing.
Thanks,
Steve
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 Jan 10 2004 - 18:22:54 GMT