LS Re: Explain the Subject/Object Metaphysics


Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:10:46 +0100


Greetings Lila People
Hopefully this will get out before the deadline and will have to be my
final post on the SOM
explanation before we get on to the new subject. I sensed a generally
lukewarm reception
to my addition to Theo's expansion of the SOM definition. I can see why
in a way as the
idea of a SOM that is value free needs further explanation which would
not be appropriate
within the conciseness of either Diana's initial definition or Theo's
expansion. Part of the
reason for my addition was to emphasize that within any SOM form the
idea of value has
to be contained within either the Subject or the Object. Fairly
obviously it is not contained
within the Object and anyone who attempted to assert such an idea would
be asked to
provide some means whereby it can be detected and/or measured. As it is
not within the
Object it must be within the Subject - i.e. the observer. This has
traditionally always been
the means by which Value is set up for attack. It is also the reason why
it has been
successfully attacked.

If Value only exists from the point of view of the observer then any
statement that the observer makes regarding Value can be dismissed as
mere subjectivism. This seems to be the problem which Pirsig describes,
regarding Bohrs position in Subjects, Objects, Data and Value (SODV))
and is part of the reason for the existence of the MoQ. Value is
acceptable from the point of view of the Subjectivist/Idealist paradigm
and its existence is acknowledged from within this model but cannot be
defended as more than something which the Subject perceives. Further,
Value is perceived as either instrumental or intrinsic and ascribable
only to the Object. It is not seen (as far as I am aware) as something
which exists seperately from either subject or object and this is the
sense in which I proposed the modification to the definition.

BODVAR:
"Your addition to Theo's is a wee superfluous, the value freedom is
inherent in the Subject-Object split. Yet you won't find a single
person in this world adhering to a valuefree world view (you
won't find any SOM-ist for that matter. No, no, there's an enormous
amount of talk about values."

But all talk of Value(s) is in terms of that Value which is created BY
Nations, Tradition, Christians etc. But it is Value which creates these
things. Value is NOT subjugated by the Subject or the Object it is what
creates Subject and Object. This is quite obvious from a MoQ viewpoint
but not from a SOM point of view. This is where SOM has tied itself in
knots. This is similar to Hugo's proposal in that there is a tacit
presumption that Value is created by Subject or Object and not the
reverse.

THEO:
"My question to you and the group is whether the reduction of value to,
"just what you like," is NECESSARILY part of SOM. For it to be in a
definition it must be necessary to SOM. I can see at once that
Christians are going to say that this does not include them. God has
value to them and is not "just what you like." In fact I would suspect
that anyone who believes in 'objectivity' in morals, (Kant included)
would say that value is more than "just what you like" and so they do
not take an SOM position. I fully concede that SOM is very likely to
dismiss value but would contend that many manifestations of SOM do not
do so, thus falling outside the definition. Are we heading towards a
Strawman with this inclusion?"

As with Bodvars examples, there seems to be the assumption that Value is
created by Subject or Object. The subjectivists, even though admitting
the existence of Value would be unlikely to accept that it is Value
which creates X, whilst objectivists will dismiss it out of hand. I can
see your point about the Strawman isssue though as the addition that I
made is more from an MoQ point of view than from a SOM perspective,
although from the SOM perspective subject and object are implicit
anyway and the general reaction when pressed will be that this is not
_REALLY_ how things are, it is just a device.

It may be that the idea of Value freedom is something that I considered
obvious but is more subtle and could provide a weak point in a SOM
definition which has to be acceptable within a SOM framework.

THEO:
"No objections to your hijacking Horse. My definition is little more
than a synthesis of Diana, Hugo and your definitions, so you are more
than welcome to do as you will with it."

With or without the "Value Freedom" idea I would say that your
contribution is the best of the SOM definitions. This is not to run
down any of the other definitions, which are all good, but I think that
this provides a more SOM and MoQ acceptable synthesis.

MAGNUS:
"I also think that the A/NOT A approach is way too general. It
includes every philosophy that can be viewed as a dualism at
some level, and that's most. What's more important, I have a
feeling that whoever states that SOM is A/NOT A, also thinks
that the MoQ is not, i.e. some kind of fuzzy philosophy that
doesn't say much about reality and because of that, doesn't
contain contradictions. The MoQ cut is as rigid as any other,
just different, but I think that's the next subject."

A OR NOT A is applicable only to exclusivist dualisms. This is their
essence. You are correct in your assumption that including A OR NOT A
in a SOM definition means that I do not consider MoQ in this class ( I
won't presume to speak for others). However. the idea that a 'fuzzy'
philosophy doesn't say much about reality is wrong. It says enormously
more about reality.Fuzziness is NOT another word for vague in the same
way that Chaos is not another way of saying unordered. They are both
words that have prior usage but are both used in a specific and well
defined sense. I hope for our sake that the MoQ cut is not absolute and
rigid as if this is the case we are in serious trouble - the same sort
of trouble that led to the paradoxes within SOM. As you say though,
this is the next subject. I look forward to a frank and fair exchange of
views :)

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 - 16:43:20 CEST