From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 22:36:36 GMT
Not sure where Matt was coming from with the original question.
For Pisigian (or a pragmatist) surely "objective" is fundamentally
meaningless - just a term used by SOMists which has a dictionary definition
which "presumes" the idea that facts are non-subjective / independant of the
perceiver. (Colloquial use = dictionary defintion, by defintion - that's
what a dictionary is.) Of course as a pragmatist he and I would accept that
for practical puposes there are plenty of things in life that behave
predictably enough according to classical Newtonian physics and logical
reason to be treated as "objective" facts, but very few above the physical
level.
Harmony is about "seeming" to be right in the same indefinable way that one
senses "quality". Almost by definition from the musical root of the word it
must be "subjective" to a SOMist, even if it could be retrospectively
explained in "objective" terms. Key thing though, as with objectivity
itself, the rational explanation just satifies an innate (subjective) need
for rationale, but is (can be to a Pisrigian) no more objective than
quality.
Ian Glendinning
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: MD Objectivity and Harmony: Two Surveys
> 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
>
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 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 22:37:11 GMT