MDers, especially Struan and Bodvar,
I think laughter is a possible example of something Pirsig would claim an
SOMist would believe is unreal, but perhaps the more internalized,
generalized concept of humour is a better example. Bodvar, you said that
laughter as expression is subjective, but it's just as objective as the
facial expressions accompanying laughter. One is sound and the other is
sight; both can be objectively verified by people and recorded by
instruments.
The cause of laughter is what's truly subjective. This is humour, of
course. If Struan were to ask his students if humour was real, he may get
mixed results. A negative answer I think has more to do with the
definition of reality than anything else, because there is a definite
prejudice toward reality as meaning "objective reality". I suspect though,
that a careful student of philosophy will ask what is meant by reality in
this case, because there is a strong urge, even among westerners, to want
to answer the question affirmatively, given that there is a widely held
concensus that humour is similarly experienced by people in every
culture. It sure seems to exist, despite science not knowing what it
really is.
Humour is a kind of quality, an SOM fringe term as Pirsig would put it.
Pirsig would almost certainly say that humour is not real according to SOM.
But if you ask this question (about the reality of humour) of less
educated people, people who haven't learned the subtle prejudicial
meanings of "real" and "exists", who don't think they are being asked a
philosophical question and don't worry whether the question might be a
trick question, you will always get a response of "Sure!", along with a
big smile and maybe a laugh (probably cos they think they're being tricked
afterall or because they think the questioner isn't the brightest bulb on
the tree).
So what is SOM, according to Pirsig? As far as I can tell, it comes in
three flavors.
1) When Pirsig says that everything, according to SOM, is either a subject
or an object, he sometimes takes this to mean only substance. For some
arguments he can get away with this, and he uses this definition wherever
he can, because it makes the current metaphysics seem the most extreme and
ridiculous.
2) When he can't do this, he makes SOM define reality to include only what
science has blessed as real. It's this definition of SOM Pirsig usually
adheres to. So for example, even though gravity is neither subject nor
object (substance), the subject/object metaphysics says it's real because
science says so. He also takes the approach that if science hasn't weighed
in on a subject, even if it's a subject science has no business speaking
about, then the subject is not real. Also, depending on the argument he's
making, what constitutes science varies. Sometimes it's limited to physics.
Sometimes it includes anthropology. Sometimes he equates being scientific
with simply being rational or objective.
3) But even this doesn't suffice to cover it. Sometimes SOM refers to the
subjective/objective split, the belief that a thing is either one or the
other and the twain shall never meet. In this version of SOM, you believe
that subjective things are real, perhaps more so, than objective things,
but you are forever saddled with the vexing mind/body problem and the
inevitable slippage into solipsism, which even dualists find distasteful.
Pirsig is a recovering SOMist of this flavor, and is not too critical of
it, even though he suffered mental illness struggling over its
consequences.
So SOM is a hodgepodge of things. I spoke about my confusion of it in a
post in the MF during the month SOM was discussed as a strawman. I
certainly agree with Struan that SOM is a strawman. I think the current
western metaphysical belief system is not captured accurately by SOM. 1
and 2 are too narrow and 3 is clearly a minority position (except in this
forum). The closest representation lies somewhere between flavors 2 and 3.
My opinion is that western culture could stand being nudged toward 3 a
little bit more, to the extent that nearly all philosophy students would
agree that humour is real.
What is also troubling is that I think SOM is intentionally
misrepresented, and so in this I also agree with Struan. I think this
because Pirsig is too smart to make such errors and because he identifies
with the Sophists and their methods of rhetoric.
For those who observe,
Merry Christmas.
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
