Re: MD SOM and quality

From: Thomas (
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 09:20:55 BST

Hi Wim,

a brief reply, in some time (hopefully this week), I'll go into the

>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.

As I very shortly noted in my previous mail, I am in general sceptic
about the position that because some explanation is 'easier' (doesn't
this often mean, 'more beautiful'..? - "I like it because I can readily
understand it"), then it is more likely to "actually be the case"
(a knowlegde which in my view we could never attain). The urge to
transform dissonances, differences, things in the world into 'easy'
solutions and 'neat' theories is something I am weary of. Not everyting
can be fitted into 'neat' and orderly things. Although this urge
is also typically human, of course, seen in the trillions of books
that mankind has produced... And I am also in discussion with all
these things in my emails.

>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',
>of the way in which our language founded 'mind' works. Being human
>experiencing quality/value requires us to define and thereby create
>(WHO's) and objects (WHAT's).

Hmm... well I think I will get back to this in my mail on the platypi.
At this point I could only counter-question the MOQ way of viewing
this in the same vein:

Quality/value in MOQ begs the question WHO and WHAT we are. As I
tentatively stated a few mails ago, if we cannot say we are something,
what then remains? If we cannot say we are someone, what then remains?
Are we nothing, and just a result from the 'absolute' Quality which
is primary? This still begs the question who and what we are, and
what it is we are experiencing. These questions are immanently human
and cannot, in my view, be set aside by positioning Quality in a
God-like position.

And why is something we, according to you, create, not 'real' in
a sense? What does 'real' mean then? Are we not then stuck to the
idea that 'real' is something 'really real', hidden behind the world
we live in... and set against it? This would resemble Platonic Idealism,
a pretty Ironic outcome :o)

But these are just off the fly comments, (I am at work...), so I'll
follow this somewhere in the future with more solid arguments perhaps
(or I will be convinced by Pirsigs platypi of course)


Access over 330 professionally developed online training courses
and hundreds of free tutorials and jobs. Click below for details

Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:31 BST