Ant McWatt commented March 31st:

> >Tukkaa, I’ve read your
> > letter that you posted at MOQ Discuss on March 27th and, amongst all
> > the obscure Ptolemaic thinking, can’t see where you’ve unified the two 
> > distinct
> > metaphysical frameworks found in ZMM and LILA.
> 
> Tuukka:
> What do you mean by Ptolemaic? Obsolete?

Ant McWatt comments:

No not obsolete but rather Ptolemaic in comparison to Pirsig's much more 
simpler "Coperinican" system.

> 
> Tuukka:
> This is the MOQ in ZAMM: http://moq.fi/ZAMM-1.png
> 
> Here I split romantic quality into two patterns: 
> http://moq.fi/ZAMM-add-1.png
> 
> This is the MOQ in LILA. It is only about objective quality: 
> http://moq.fi/LILA-1.png
> 
> Here is my theory SOQ: http://moq.fi/RP-1.png

Ant McWatt comments:

Those are good, neatly designed diagrams.  However, if you have to refer to 
Dynamic Quality on a diagram, it should be unbounded; not boxed in.

> 
> Tuukka:
> 
> Subjective quality (the blue box), which was present in ZAMM, is absent 
> in LILA. Pirsig seems to have missed, that subjective value patterns 
> require subjective descriptions, and objective value patterns require 
> objective description. 

Ant McWatt comments:

Tuukka, I think you'd need to carefully define how you're using the terms 
"subjective" and "objective" in this context before much of what you've written 
in your letter (or your diagrams) could be considered meaningful.  If you refer 
to DiSanto & Steele's "Guidebook to ZMM" or Chapter 1 of my PhD, you'll see 
that pinning down the meaning of particular SOM terminology can be often like 
catching the proverbial ‘greased pig’:

"When we refer to people, methods and opinions as objective, the contrast is 
with ones that are biased, partial, prejudiced and the like.  Objectivity of 
this kind is, one might say, an epistemic virtue, something to be striven for 
if knowledge is to be effectively and reliably acquired.  But we also speak… of 
entities, properties and values as being objective.  Here, the rough intent is 
that something is objective if it exists or obtains independently of what 
people may think, experience or feel.  Expressions like ‘objective judgement’ 
and ‘objective proposition’ are therefore ambiguous.  The former, for example, 
may refer to a judgement arrived at in a suitably impartial, detached manner, 
or to one that concerns an objective state of affairs - the price of a wine, 
say, as opposed to its quality."  

David E. Cooper (The Measure of Things, 2002, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p.214)

It is apparent that within SOM the notions of ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’ 
can be assigned as metaphysical terms (referring to types of reality such as 
mind and matter) in addition to being assigned as epistemological terms 
(referring to ways of knowing; as in the ‘spectatorial’ accounts of knowing 
criticised by Heidegger).  A further SOM semantic construction of note is that 
being a ‘subject’ (for instance, being a centre of consciousness) is not 
usually considered problematic but (with the simple addition of a seemingly 
neutral suffix) being ‘subjective’ (as a criticism of being engaged in 
conscious activity that will lead to an incorrect relation with an object) is.  

On the other hand, it is considered problematic to treat people like objects 
but unproblematic (in most contexts) to treat them ‘objectively’ (i.e. without 
prejudice).  In this context, to treat people ‘objectively’ entails that they 
are not treated as ‘objects’.  On the other hand, it can be argued that it is 
only by subjectively identifying and empathising with their subjects that 
anthropologists, for instance, can arrive at fair-minded, informed and more 
‘objective’ accounts.  Yet, this shows a typical ambiguity in SOM as we observe 
‘subjective’ knowledge (gained through empathy and identification) mysteriously 
becoming ‘objective’.  I therefore hope you're beginning to see why it might 
also be better to avoid all SOM terminology in the first place if you're going 
to formulate a new metaphysical framework based on Pirsig's MOQ!

Best wishes,

Ant

(site administrator, www.robertpirsig.org)





.

                                          
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

Reply via email to