Hi Bo and Scott, and all.
Can I ask a question? How can you get around the
"bias" of being an observer? Which therefore means an
acknowledgment that there can never be pure
objectivity.
This is perfectly okay. It just means that we need to
always remember to be ready to compensate to remember
that we could we in error about what we understand
about our experiences and what we believe about them.
It just means we could be wrong. Our own perspective
is enterally shading what we observe. This is the
"observer/reality DIVIDE". which I would call the
Internal Reality [observer] & External Reality
[observed]. Theoretically External Reality is where
100% pure objectivity is, but we are always in our own
mind, own culture, own Q-Intellect and thus never able
to view anything outside of that framework.
Therefore: "Quality intellect is S/O intellect, that
is, it shows itself as q-intellect to the extent that
the result is all and only about the object -- no
prejudices resulting from social influences, from
self-interest, etc." Is from the get go a inaccurate
statement. There is never an examination of anything
"only about the object -- no prejudices". We can only
look out at the world from within our perspective.
To use a literary analogy: We are striving for 3rd
person Omniscient perspective. But we in reality can
only see the world from a 1st person limited
perspective. To see the world from "3rd person
Omniscience" is to be God!
Okay, now it seems that at the end of your dialogue
you two realize that we can only do the best we can.
You two seem to recognize that we are operating from
some kind of limitation in our perspective. At the
end of this post you seem to have moved away from the
statement of un-bias objectivity that I point out and
that I questioned. So, in the end I think you have
realized that we can only have a 1st person limited
perspective.
Is that a fair characterization of your
understandings?
Acknowledging I'm not God,
Gary
--- skutvik@online.no wrote:
> Scott and All
>
> You wrote (13 July):
> When you say "intellect properly understood (by me:)
> is the value of
> the observer/reality DIVIDE" I am understanding this
> -- correct me if
> I'm wrong -- as, first, acknowledging DQ as that
> which creates the
> divide, and, second, recognizing the value of -- in
> the common sense
> of the term -- objectivity. We value the
> disinterested judgment over
> the biased, and so forth.
>
> Bo:
> You are spot on!
>
> Scott ctd...:
> (However, I object to your characterization of the
> divide being
> between "observer" and "reality",...see below).
> Here's my understanding of SOLAQI:
> Quality intellect is S/O intellect, that is, it
> shows itself as
> q-intellect to the extent that the result is all and
> only about the
> object -- no prejudices resulting from social
> influences, from
> self-interest, etc. As a counter to this, one has
> the half-baked
> post-modern objections, first, that there is no such
> thing as
> perfectly unbiased intellect, and second, that the
> high value attached
> to objectivity is itself a bias.
>
> Bo:
> OK objection sustained, but we must not start
> arguing from our "post-modern"
> p.o.v. rather understand the terrific VALUE of this
> when it emerged from the
> mythical past. Maybe the "observer/reality" is a
> late variant (Descartes) of
> something that has had a long development, with
> Plato it was "ideas/shadows"
> and with Aristotle "form/substance", the point is
> that this divide between what is
> "imperishable and mere appearance" came into
> existenc more or less as Pirsig
> describes it in ZAM and has been with us ever since.
>
>
> Scott ctd...:
> I think the first objection can be
> dismissed by granting it, and saying we don't expect
> perfection, just
> the best we can do.
>
> Bo:
> I see what you mean, but this post-modern objection
> is valid, it's Intellect
> starting to become aware of the dynamic sea
> surrounding it. No use trying to
> argue against that.
>
> Scott ctd...:
> On the second, I would say that it is beside the
> point. WE (in the post-Enlightenment age) value
> unbiased thinking
> within some situation. True, accepting that
> situation (like wanting to
> cure disease through studying germs) is a cultural
> bias, but (a) it is
> S/O thinking that allows for that possibility, and
> (b) once accepted,
> one can WITHIN that subject area, try not to be
> biased.
>
> Bo:
> Excellent, but as with the first, no use. With
> tongue in the cheeck the MOQ can
> be said to be a Metaphysics of Bias (bias and value
> can easily be interchanged)
> but within its system Intellect is the value of
> "unbiasness" and as each level is
> with the later development forever, intellect's S/O
> value can't be jettisoned. That
> is if Intellect is seen in this limited sense and
> not as pure "ideas" where S/O is
> one idea and the MOQ another. That makes for a
> dangerous development
> because S/O is then seen as an inferior idea which
> is it NOT .....only the "M"
> relay pin is taken over by the MOQ.
>
> Scott ctd...:
> However, SOM is a bias, and an example of that can
> be seen in your
> phrase "observer/reality divide". Why is only one
> side "real"? To be
> fair, in ordinary discourse, that use of the word
> "reality" is
> legitimate, but if we are doing metaphysics, then
> you've loaded the
> dice. The MoQ says that both observer and observed
> are two sides of
> the Reality which is that which makes the division
> into subject and
> object. And that is the intellectual level of static
> quality.
>
> Bo:
> Sure, all levels are biased, even the value level
> trying to transcend Intellect will
> be biased, yet Intellect's value of an unloaded dice
> is now part of the higher
> development and therefore Killerblade's argument of
> ...."everything a load of
> bollock" don't count.
>
> Scott ctd...:
> (Is that a fair restatement of SOLAQI? If not, fill
> me in on what I've
> missed. In any case, the following continues from
> the above.)
>
> It's splendid, you made my day Scott. The rest of
> your message requires
> another post.
>
> Bo
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive -
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
> instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:26 BST