Fellow foci
In this month's topic:
> A Subject/Object Metaphysics makes us look for the reason for
> everything in one of its two realms--for instance the culture vs.
> nature debate. As the Metaphysics of Quality rejects the
> subject/object division as fundamental, where does it look for (and
> find) an explanation?
the culture vs nature riddle is highlighted, but it appears in many
guises. Yet let's concentrate on it because it fits in with the
opening chapter of LILA where Pirsig's discusses anthropology.
The last I heard of it was that Margaret Mead (Coming of Age in
Samoa) had been fooled by the youngsters that - like the Indians
of LILA - found it extremely funny with this white lady asking all
sorts of questions and had piled on as much of what they felt she
wanted to hear.
Mead did belong to the "nurture" school: the upbringing is the
source for what a human being becomes. LILA doesn't seriously
discuss those two approaches, because it rejects both. The point
of Pirsig using anthropology was that that discipline more than
anything else shows the weakness of SOM. However, the riddle
isn't limited to anthropology, it permeates ALL of our culture
because SOM does. Recently there was a book published here in
Norway (I can't recall its title, but it was something about
conscience) and the two authors spoke about what constitutes our
"setup".
As usual they said that neither genes nor society was the sole
contributor and as usual it sounds plausible, but it's throwing sand
in ox' eyes. No sooner have they said it and turned their backs to
the microphones and cameras before they are at each other's
throats again: "It's the genes that are the REAL cause". "No, it's
society that decides what genes are to propagate themselves, and
thus REALLY is the cause! In the SOM one of the two realms HAS
to have the upper hand.
As said, Pirsig's business in LILA was to prove that VALUE was
the prime mover, and it becomes somewhat awkward to say that
his opponent was (Franz Boas) "objectivity" because that sounds
as if Pirsig defends "subjectivity", but we now know that it was
SOM's value-as-subjectivity that was his target, and we also know
his unravelling of SOM's weakness and MOQ's virtues, but did
Pirsig ever address where exactly the MOQ seeks for how we
behave the way we do, or does the MOQ abolish the whole
CAUSATION riddle. We know his tentative "new" physics of "A
causing B" replaced by "B valuing precondition A"?
Well, that is inorganic physics, about what constitutes our human
reality I feel that the four levels must play a role. In the famous "hot
stove" example Pirsig says that it is perception of value that makes
the person jump in the air, anyone else would say it's the
autonomous nerve system's reflexes which is true too. Perhaps
what Pirsig means is that the inorganic patterns of excited atoms
(heat) are perceived by the biological patterns as low value and
takes immediate action, only later as the event has gone through
the social level does the oaths and sheepish expression occurs,
and after the intellect has evaluated the situation the
"rationalization" of what happened occurs. And that this is what
happens all the time and that our actions and outlook makes it up
through the levels. Not all originating at the inorganic, some at the
biological, the social or even only taking place at the intellect.
Does this reintroduce causation in a MOQ guise?
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
