Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Mon, 25 May 1998 09:03:56 +0100
Hi squad
Horse wrote:
> I agree that A OR NOT A is minimalistic, but I believe it provides an
> inclusive and concise base for the definition of SOM. It is also at the
> heart of the paradoxical nature of SOM. The platypii of SOM, that Pirsig
> pointed out, comes about when something is discovered that is neither A
> NOR is it NOT A. As Diana shows in her definition, any phenomenon or
> event belongs in EITHER one catagory OR the other. The irreducibility of
> subject and object and the insistence that reality MUST fit into one or
> the other of these catagories produces two distinct and mutually
> exclusive sets.
I don't think that A OR NOT A is the same as subject and object -- or if
you want to be minimalist ME OR NOT ME. A/NOT A is just dualism. ME/NOT
ME is a specific type of dualism. I suggested before that it is the
mother of all dualism.
The problem with A/NOT A philosophies are that
1. There is no middle, everything is either black or white, there's no
grey
2. Something cannot be two things at the same time. (And of course I'm
going to bring up that old favorite, the dual slit experiment.)
The problem with ME/NOT ME philosophies is
1. Value is reduced to _mere_ opinion.
It's tempting to go for the A/NOT A answer, because it's simpler and
it's easier to fit ME/NOT ME inside A/NOT A than vice versa.
But if that's what Pirsig was really after why didn't he call it the
Metaphysics of the Excluded Middle, or the Either/Or metaphysics? Why
didn't he write a book about fuzzy logic or Zen contradictions? It's not
that the MoQ is inconsistent with these things, but these aren't the
main focus. He called it the subject-object metaphysics, if subject and
object isn't the dividing line, we're in a lot of trouble.
> "Not vertically- but laterally! (lateral thinking- methinks nice
> coincidence of phrase-no?) A different kind of dualism altogether! Not
> schizoid dualism - BUT INTEGRATED DUALISM."
>
> which is the form A AND NOT A where the divisions are not exclusive but
> overlapping to a degree which fits reality/experience. A AND NOT A is
> the MoQ also summed up in a minimalistic form.
We're getting far too abstract here. The MOQ supports A AND NOT A? I
think we need some examples.
Bodvar wrote
> Yes, I buy Diana's definition, but am a little reluctant re. Horse's
> minimalistic 'A OR NOT A' which only says that this thing over
> here is different from the one over there, but does NOT indicate that
> one phenomenon is in a compartment totally different from the other.
Right, that's my problem with it too.
Jonathan wrote
> ... and since we have experience of subjective reality and no way to
> experience objective reality, then the latter is SUPERNATURAL!!!!
Yes, not very "objective" at all really.
> I think that objectivity and subjectivity are not the same as objective
> and subjective realities defined above by Diane. When we talk about
> objectivity (at least in science) we mean that the observations and
> interpretations are based on clearly defined rules. Subjectivity is when
> a view is expressed without these criteria - whatever one likes!
Okay, I should have added that the SOM is usually implicit in a theory
rather than explicit. Of course scientists don't actually _say_ they
subscribe to it. But the very notion that certain things can be
"measured" while others are only "opinion" can only arise if you believe
that subjects and objects are fundamentally different.
And welcome to you and the other recent subscribers. If I haven't
answered you all it's either because I agree or someone else has already
voiced my opinion.
Diana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST