Bo: thanks to the only thinker of this discussion - Jorge Goldfarb - I finally understood Pirsig's "many truths" assertion, namely that science will never arrive at a final result.
Ron: Well by all means lets run with it. I highlighted some points that I think need to be brought to bear to Clarify the MoQ position in regard to the intellectual level being The aggregate of the S/O distinction. In fact Pirsig states that it Is the reverse, that the intellectual level creates the aggregate Of the s/o distinction. Pirsig: "Between the subject and the object lies the value. This value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any "self" or any "object" to which it might be later assigned." "It is the primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and heat and oaths and self are later intellectually constructed." Pirsig: "The clear, overt statement that quality is an empirical phenomenon." The Metaphysics of Quality restates the empirical basis of logical positivism with more precision, more inclusiveness, more explanatory power than it has previously had. It says that values are not outside of the experience that logical positivism limits itself to. They are the essence of this experience. Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects. I notice that Barfield uses the term "meaning" which is also avoided in the MOQ. "Meaning" confuses two distinct entities which the MOQ sharply distinguishes as, "value" and "definition." When a scientist asks "What is the meaning of this phenomenon?" he may be confusing two entirely separate questions: (1) "What is the value of this phenomenon?" and (2) How does this phenomenon integrate intellectually with what we already know? By using this equivocal term some scientists find they can make value judgments without' admitting they are doing so. They cannot say, "This is important because I like it," so they say, "This is meaningful!" If someone challenges them by asking, "Why is it meaningful?" they can evade question (1) "What is the value?" by answering question (2) with a lengthy explanation of how the phenomenon in question integrates with our existing knowledge. I have seen this happen again and again and imagine you have too. Ron: Especially in discussions about the "meaning" of the 4 levels in MoQ. Pirsig: It was not made clear enough in Lila, but the Metaphysics of Quality resolves the subject-object problem by containing it at a high level so that there really is no contradiction between the two systems of metaphysics. The MOQ says that the two lower levels of static patterns of quality-inorganic and biological-are exactly synonymous with what is called "objective." The two upper levels-social and intellectual-are exactly synonymous with what is called "subjective." The terms "objective" and "subjective" are no longer needed in any way. They should be avoided as imprecise and confusing. If you get in the habit of stopping every time you see the word "subjective" or "objective" and substitute the appropriate static value level, you will find a lot of fallacious thinking suddenly becomes very apparent, particularly in the social sciences. Mr. Pirsig continues: The MOQ does not agree with Steiner (on p.208 of Poetic Diction) when he says "thinking transcends the distinction of subject and object." Ron: Your 5th level Bo. RMP's explanation: According to the MOQ thinking is subjective. But the MOQ does agree with Steiner when he says consciousness transcends the distinction between subject and object because the MOQ says that' not all consciousness is thinking. Artistic consciousness precedes thinking and is separate from it both in the judgment of Freshman composition and in jumping up from a hot stove, and also, I think, in the making of scientific discoveries. Ron: > When Derk Bodde translated Feng Youlan's history of Chinese philosophy > (1952), he noted the difficulties of construing the White Horse paradox > in English Bo: I have read it all and it looks like SOM at the Plato/Aristotelian stage; "Horseness" the stable objective part, with the living animal the fleeting subjective part. Showing that the Orientals had an intellectual encounter, but it never developed into a SOM. This was not halted by their language's structure, if they would not have begun it in the first place. Ron: Did you read it all? It stated that Chinese language did not Make allowances for abstract/concrete distinction in its terms. Both fall under one term. Are you stating that Chinese culture Does not possess an intellectual level? Seriously? Where is your support for any of your assertions? You have yet to produce anything other than your own interpretation. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
