From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 16:56:46 GMT
Bo, David
> Paul previously said:
> Again I think intersubjective agreement, in the MOQ, translates into
> varying degrees of social and intellectual quality.
Bo said:
You don't counter Matt's argument by this. His is that the MOQ itself
"lock stock and barrel" is part of the "intersubjective" make-up, not
two static levels.
Paul:
Yes, and I was disagreeing by saying that intersubjective agreement only
translates into the top two levels. Matt was saying that inorganic and
biological patterns are also part of the continuum of intersubjective
agreement. In the same post I said that whilst this is so in an
epistemological sense (i.e. there is intersubjective agreement *about*
inorganic and biological patterns), Pirsig is positing inorganic and
biological patterns as ontologically objective. This statement from
Lila's Child backs up this claim:
"As the diagram in SODV shows, subjective knowledge (social and
intellectual patterns) is different from objects (biological and
inorganic patterns). Their unity occurs only in the Dynamic Quality that
precedes all patterns. Confusion is generated on this matter when it is
forgotten that all scientific knowledge, including knowledge of objects,
is subjective knowledge." [Lila's Child p.313]
> dmb says:
> I think Paul is right. In the MOQ, intersubjective agreement and the
> MOQ's top two levels represent two different ideas about the same
> thing. Further, the kind of value or Quality that gives rise to the
> static levels is Dynamic and so the assertion that "value..is a
> continuum of intersubjective agreement" demonstrates a lack of
> comprehension about Pirisg's most important terms. Without an
> understanding of these basic Pirsigisms, no comparison to Rorty or any
> other philosopher is possible. It appears that Matt literally doesn't
> know what he's talking about.
Bo said:
Paul is always right .. for DMB ;-). Please report to the bridge those
who understand the above.
Paul:
What is so difficult to understand about this? Value, itself, is Dynamic
Quality, intersubjective agreement is part of static quality, therefore
value cannot be "a continuum of intersubjective agreement." If Matt had
said that *static* value is a continuum of intersubjective agreement it
may have been nearer the mark, although still incorrect.
Bo said:
Is this the MOQ that children are supposed to understand?
Paul:
Pirsig says that *value* is understood by every infant, not the MOQ.
Bo said:
From ZMM we know that Pirsig identifies his Quality idea with the Aretê
of the Sophists, thus it is plain that Protagoras' "Man the Measure of
All Things" must be intimately connected with the MOQ and if you posit
it as the best intellectual pattern (in the idea-intellect) you are back
in the bosom of "Mattagoras".
Paul:
Please report to the bridge those who understand the above.
Bo said:
However, with the MOQ as something beyond intellect, things are safe and
sound.
Paul:
Here we go again.
Bo said:
Intellect's value of "truth over man" (rationality) prevails as a static
value - immutable as static values are, while the MOQ is immune to
accusations of subjectivity
Paul:
This is getting ridiculous. The MOQ, by its own static categorisation,
*is* subjective in an *ontological* sense - like all intellectual
patterns, it has no material existence, it cannot be detected by any of
the five senses or any instrument designed to enhance or mimic the
senses. But the MOQ's ontology is not limited to the mass/energy=reality
equation made by materialist versions of SOM so this lack of material
existence is not a problem. Ideas are just as real as matter as they are
both readily experienced forms of Quality. The surprising thing is that
it was ever possible for anyone to express *the idea* that ideas weren't
real, and have it understood and accepted!
This is what Pirsig is talking about in ZMM when he says: "The problem,
the contradiction the scientists are stuck with, is that of mind. Mind
has no matter or energy but they can't escape its predominance over
everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. Numbers exist only in the
mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the
mind. It's that *only* that gets me. Science is *only* in your mind too,
it's just that that doesn't make it bad." [ZMM p.37]
Epistemologically, however, there is no sharp distinction to be made
between subjective and objective *knowledge*, as pragmatists will tell
you. Instead there are intellectual patterns of varying static quality.
History has shown that the application of rhetoric and logic, the rigour
of scientific method, the use of mathematics, the insistence on evidence
and so on, has improved static intellectual quality i.e. has created the
best ideas. The best ideas, with the necessary social support, become
widely accepted, turn into common sense and we call these ideas and
methods "objective."
If the terms objective and subjective, with respect to ideas, methods
and knowledge, were replaced with high quality and low quality, I think
there would be less confusion. "Objective" would then only be used to
describe the patterns of value that create matter and organisms - the
patterns available to our physical senses - and would not describe a
kind of knowledge. Then, knowledge of cultural patterns and knowledge of
rocks would be on an equal footing and would be graded by being good or
bad rather than by the ontological status of their respective subject
matter.
This is difficult to explain, I hope it makes sense.
Regards
Paul
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 Feb 10 2004 - 16:55:39 GMT