For Struan,
I hate to dig up and old argument but... do you remember when you wrote this
(see below for question):
STRUAN:
"PIRSIG:
"In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three things: mind,
matter and Quality.
Because something is not located in the object does not mean that it has to
be located in your mind.
Quality cannot be independently derived form either mind or matter. But it
can be derived from the
relationship of mind and matter with each other. Quality occurs at the point
at which subject and
object meet. Quality is not a thing. It is an event. It is the event at
which the subject becomes
aware of the object. And because without objects there can be no subject,
quality is the event at
which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible. Quality is
not just the result of a
collision between subject and object. The very existence of subject and
object themselves is deduced
from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and
objects, which are then
mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!"
1)"In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three things:
mind, matter and Quality."
OK A presupposition, but we know that. I'm not happy with 'Quality' and
nobody thinks that subjects
and objects are all there is, but that comes later.
2) "Because something is not located in the object does not mean that it has
to be located in your
mind."
Agreed. The carpet is really blue but my mind is a 'factor' in that reality.
NOTE: A 'factor.' Not,
'the only factor', or even, 'the decisive factor.' The 'blueness' is a
property of the object (UNDER
AYER'S DEFINITION) but it is also contingent upon the mind therefore:
3) "But it can be derived from the relationship of mind and matter with each
other."
Precisely the point.
4) "Quality occurs at the point at which subject and object meet"
Absolutely. Note that mind has become subject and matter, object. Can we use
these interchangeably?
Quality occurs at the point at which mind and matter meet. Fine with me.
5) "Quality is not a thing. It is an event"
Of course
6) "It is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the object"
Again. It is the event at which mind becomes aware of matter. Ok
7) "And because without objects there can be no subject, quality is the
event at which awareness of
both subjects and objects is made possible."
Aha! That is why the subtle shift from mind and matter to subject and object
has been made. I agree
that an object pre-supposes a subject, but what about this? "And because
without matter there can be
no mind, quality is the event at which awareness of both mind and matter is
made possible." There is
no logical contradiction in postulating mind without matter. The strong 'a
priori' argument that
objects rely upon subjects has vanished completely. Notice that this is not
a question of whether
mind is contingent upon matter in the sense that it could not have come into
being without it, it is
a question of whether the mind can function without perception of matter.
Notice also that this does
not need to be empirically validated (although I suspect it can), the fact
that it is logically
possible is enough. The argument collapses at this point.
8) "Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject and
object"
Hmm . . . . tell me more
9) "The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from the
Quality event."
'Deduced.' It is that 'awareness' thing again. Notice that deduction is not
empirical. cf. point 7.
Can I say, "The very existence of mind and matter themselves is deduced from
the Quality event?" Is
deduced by what? The subject? Pirsig has made the huge jump from, Quality
being 'derived from the
relationship of mind and matter,' and occurring, 'AT THE POINT AT WHICH
SUBJECT AND OBJECT MEET,'
to:
10) "The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which are
then mistakenly presumed
to be the cause of the Quality!"
So how does he make this jump from quality 'being DERIVED from the
relationship between mind and
matter' (my emphasis) to it being the CAUSE of mind and matter? The answer
is that he does it with
that short sentence in point 7. He does it by sneakily replacing mind and
matter (which is what he
is really talking about) with subjects and objects in order to give his
reasoning veracity."
RICK:
Having just read some Kant I was wondering... if you replace all the
"Mind/Matter"s and "Subject/Object"s with various tenses of
"Phenomenal/Noumenal", as in---"And because without nominal there can be no
phenomenal....." --- do you still think the reasoning fails....?
thanks,
Rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST