From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 31 2004 - 15:03:20 GMT
Hi guys
Matt is making some good points, I would add that if we abandon
subject-object schism then we also need to rethink inter-subjective
agreement.
Human being is a differentiation from the underlying concept Being.
Knowledge
is possible because of the dynamic openness of Human Being, we expand the
contents
of human being to include more and more Being/reality/truth hence truth is
simply
to uncover (aletheia) more being. Does the process include error, lies and
illusion? Yes.
These too are part of reality. Truth is a continual expansion, and I think
we are foolish
to abandon coherence with the pragmatists. I think the illusions of a
non-stratified ontology
accounts for the pragmatists pessimism. A stratified ontology like
Pirsig/Roy Bhaskar can allow
us to have a non-reductive and non-determinist judgemental reason.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ
> Paul, David,
>
> Paul said:
> Yes, "little more than" is a conclusion arrived at when the only
alternative to objective is subjective. When value enters the picture as a
third category, there is a further reason to accept realism - it's the
*best* intellectual pattern for investigating nature. From this starting
point we can say that intersubjective agreement is created by Quality and
objectivity is then created by intersubjective agreement. I think this is an
important MOQ contribution to pragmatism. Matt, I'm sure, doesn't think it
necessary and puts it down to common sense.
>
> Matt:
> I'm not sure what the "common sense" bit means in your ascription of my
views, but I think that saying that there are three categories, objective,
subjective, and value, misses the point of what Pirsig was doing. Pirsig
posited value behind objective and subjective. I take this to mean that
he's dissolving the contrast between them. This, I think, is his move
towards intersubjective agreement. Value, as the dissolving category (if
you will), is a continuum of intersubjective agreement. Put this way, you
are moreorless right, "intersubjective agreement is created by Quality and
objectivity is then created by intersubjective agreement." Pragmatists just
don't take the "objectivity" to mean anything more than "lots of
intersubjective agreement." As long as we have Quality in place, there
isn't really a good line to be drawn between merely intersubjective and
objective.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 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 : Sat Jan 31 2004 - 16:46:26 GMT