Greetings, Bo --
Ham, All.
I'll start with apologizing for my "silence" accusation.
I check my post only once a day so I don't know what's
going on between (my) mornings. Also, I forgot to add
a smiley to you Ham after "accusing" you of picking nits
..etc. in my latest to you.
No apology necessary, Bo. I am nit picking, but for a good reason.
When we talk about metaphysics, it is generally expected to encompass a
cosmology or ontology that explains reality beyond its physical appearance.
"Platonism", for example, is a theory that denies the reality of the
material world.
"Material monism" is the philosophical concept that the cosmos is unified
and comprehensive. "Pantheism" holds to the theory that all forms of
reality are either modes or appearances of one Being. "Subjectivism" is the
concept that all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its
sensory states
Subject/object reality is neither a theory nor a concept. Rather than a
study of the nature of reality, it's the acceptance of the physical world as
experienced.
I can understand why Pirsig would want to elevate Quality above empirical
objectivism -- that's his thesis, after all -- but to suggest that the
relation of subjects to objects constitutes a "metaphysics" (i.e., SOM) is
philosophically unjustified. And for you to assert that SOM emerged from
some intellectual mutation in social evolution further confuses the issue.
It is the most general definition I can muster. An example:
In the Pre-historic Ages when social value dominated there
were no skeptics who asked the tribe elders "are these stories
you tell OBJECTIVELY TRUE, does the gods, goddesses
...etc. REALLY exist? Could it be that things have a
NATURAL explanation. Only with the Greeks did this
attitude emerge, not right away, but the search for eternal
principles started this intellectual snowball rolling.
It seems to me that this "attitude" you are describing is plain old
Aristotelian objectivism (pre-scientific analysis). In any case,
subject-object reality is not a metaphysics, even if it led the Greeks to
investigate the principles of nature.
It only became "metaphysics" after Pirsig pointed it out as SOM.
Before that everyone - like you - took it for granted - how existence
had been assembled "at the factory" so to say. Now, he called the
MOQ a metaphysics too and should have left it there, but trust Pirsig to
undermine his own achievement, he postulated that Quality is the
OBJECTIVE reality and the MOQ just another SUBJECTIVE theory,
which is back to SOM-land.
That's the equivalent of saying gravity didn't exist until Einstein came up
with his theory of relativity. Pointing out some principle or
characteristic of universal experience and assigning a label to it does not
make it a metaphysics.
Also, why did you describe SOM as "the 'objective-OVER-subject' approach
without its 'M'"? Aren't you forcing an unwarranted conclusion? If we
ignore the "M", we are left with a simple dichotomy (dyad) relating subject
to object, with no presumption that one dominates the other.
Thanks for helping to clear up my misunderstanding, Bo.
Best regards,
Ham
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/md/archives.html
