All, On 2/3/10 3:02 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> " And then he says, "Actually this whole dilemma of >> subjectivity-objectivity, of mind-matter, with relationship to Quality >> was unfair," (239) before concluding: "Phaedrus ... went straight between >> the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is >> neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter." (240) > > Right. he concludes that Quality can't be found in any SOM camp, it's > neither objective nor subjective No so. The SOM camp can easily claim that there are two parallel camps of quality. Objective material characteristics (degree of hardness ,red hues, rarity in nature, etc) and subjective degrees of excellence such as (beauty, power displayed by ownership, economic value, etc) of rubies. This does not say they have no relationships with each other. That two is simpler and more elegant than four levels. Particularly if the four are based on a psuedo-evolutionary model that science has little or any evidence for. > Likewise, but even if the SOM - be it in its subject/object or > mind/matter form - can't stand up for scrutiny and the true context > soon shows namely that you can't have one without the other - the two > "horns" is an aggregate - SOM's value shows namely the objective > attitude. Even discovering that SOM is metaphysically invalid requires > an objective attitude and this remains THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL of > the MOQ > >> I think the sentence that tells us the most about Pirsig's concerns is >> this one: "The whole purpose of scientific method is to make valid >> distinctions between the false and the true in nature, to eliminate >> subjective, unreal, imaginary elements from one's work so as to obtain an >> objective, true picture of reality." (236) > > STOP PRESS! Here is what I have harped on for the last ten years: In > a MOQ context SOM's value is the "objective-over subjective" attitude. > That this must be the value of the intellectual LEVEL (and nothing > emerging with the Neanderthals) goes without saying. Hugs and > kisses Matt! While you (and maybe Pirsig) have been hiding out in the intellectual boondocks for the last quarter of a century the scientists have been addressing this whole issue by saying and proving over and over that there is no truly OBJECTIVE science. All science is guided, influenced by social (subjective) values. This started with flint tools and continues though nuclear weapons. And further given that subjective, valuing humans do science, it is not, or will not be ever possible to arrive at truly objective science. In fact to even think this is possible on any really meaningful human level is misguided at best, absolutely BAD at worst. Just finish Episode 18 where Richard Lewontin a biologist says in no uncertain term that applying "evolution" to any field other than biology, even metaphorically, is misguided at best, usually is misleading, wrong, and stupid at worst. Word search Lila for "evolution". Could this possibly be why scientists are do not have HUG and KISSES for RMP. Just wondering. Dave 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/
