From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Feb 11 2004 - 19:15:01 GMT
Hi Paul & all
It may be difficult, but for me you have hit the nail on its head:
Paul:
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.
DM: This is so good I am going to get it printed on a t-shirt.
I strongly suggest we adopt this. Object implies something that can be an
object of consciousness. Let's stick to high or low quality static pattern
from
now on, if anyone says subjective or objective let's paste this paragraph
up.
This is exactly why under SOM objectivity has become associated with the
quantitative analysis that applies well to the first two ontological levels
but not the
second two. Clearly there is a form of quantitative knowledge that is easier
to reach
agreement about that applies best to the 2 lower ontological levels. I would
suggest that
it applies badly to the 2 higher levels due to the extra DQ manifesting on
these levels
and therefore the near impossibility of doing controlled experiments.
So long live good and bad static patterns in all their cultural
mainfestations and down
with confusing the value and reliability of knowledge with the ontological
levels.
Paul do you agree with me that this acceptance of ontological levels is
where you
part with the anti-metaphysics of pragmatism, and follow a path of a radical
and unique
metaphysics?
3 cheers for Paul....
Regards
David Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ
> 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
>
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 : Wed Feb 11 2004 - 19:22:04 GMT