Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Fri, 29 May 1998 02:29:26 +0100
" A subject object metaphysics is any one of a family of explanations of
reality which rest upon the tacit assumption that there are two separate
and irreducible fundamentals in the way we perceive the universe, namely
the experiencing subject and the experienced object. Although not
necessarily recognised by its proponents this 'A or not A' position
leads to an irreconcilable tension between subjective reality and
objective reality with each vying for dominance within the subject
object metaphysical system."
Of all the definitions of SOM put forward so far this seems to be the
best, although it still seems to lack something by not acknowledging
that one of the traits of the SOM family is the relegation of value to
"just what you like". The problem with any system that denies that value
is an ACTUAL and necessary part of reality is that it excludes any
possibilty of an acceptable moral system other than one that sees an
acceptable moral position as something instrumental to human-centred
ends.
I would propose only a small change to Theo's definition to produce:
" A subject object metaphysics is any one of a family of VALUE FREE
explanations of reality which rest upon the tacit assumption that there
are two separate and irreducible fundamentals in the way we perceive
the universe, namely the experiencing subject and the experienced
object. Although not necessarily recognised by its proponents this 'A or
not A' position leads to an irreconcilable tension between subjective
reality and objective reality with each vying for dominance within the
subject object metaphysical system."
Apologies to Theo for hijacking (and adding very little to) his
definition. Hope you don't mind.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST