I wrote 31/8 22:03 +0200:
'when you say that Quality emerges from interaction of objects and subjects
... [y]ou will always be left with the question HOW Quality emerges from
(supposedly indepently existing) objects and subjects, whether Quality
becomes more or less if this or that changes 'objectively' or 'subjectively'
and ... to what extent it is 'objective' (dependent on characteristics of
the objects interacting) and to what extent it is 'subjective' (dependent on
characteristics of the subjects interacting).'
You reply 6/9 9:03 +0200:
'the same counts for the opposite position: one would have to explain how SO
emerges from Q. And either question is a pretty hard nut to crack - so I
would not use this as argument against either position.'
I'll provide you with an answer how subjects and objects emerge from
Quality/value. It's far easier than the other way around, so it IS an
argument against SOM.
Quality/value simply begs the question WHO values (assigns quality to) WHAT.
It does so because of the meaning we give to 'quality' and 'value', because
of the way in which our language founded 'mind' works. Being human
experiencing quality/value requires us to define and thereby create subjects
(WHO's) and objects (WHAT's).
Pirsig solved SOM's platypi on this basis. I'm very interested to read in
another e-mail from you how you propose to solve them on the basis of
'Quality emerging from interaction of objects and subjects'...
Met vriendelijke groet,
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST