Hi Gary (Scott mentioned)
You said (14 July):
> 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.
Is this a question? You seem to have the answer too :-)
> 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.
OK, this is the observer/observed divide, that we all agree about, but I want
it to be the intellectual level of the MOQ! Sounds like you agree from what
you say lower down.
[NB! To this Scott answered: "No. The divide is the creation of subject and
object which is entirely correct in the sense that THE VALUE creates, that
goes for all levels. I just don't want us to get lost in details.]
Of course it is impossible to be unbiased in any absolute sense, that's why
S-O Metaphysics is flawed, but the static value of the subject/object divide is
of enormous importance. It has given us the modern world and we would be
bad off forfeiting that by declaring it a "bad intellectual idea" replaced by the
the better MOQ. S/O is Intellect - lock stock ..etc while the Quality is an idea
not at home with Intellect.
> Therefore: "Quality intellect is S/O intellect
Right, here you say it!
> 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."
Well, Intellect does in fact recognize an influence from other people and
from self-interest which it calls "subjective" and what we must strive to free
ourselves from. According to intellect this objectivity is PRINCIPALLY
possible.
> 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.
Yes, this we know from the QUALITY perspective, but Intellect knows no
social or intellectual LEVEL, it views reality as Subject/Object divided. Full
Stop!
> 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!
"Elementary Dr Watson" :-) However, the MOQ postulates no God's Eye
view. Whatever wants to free itself from Intellect's bias will be a new bias. It
goes on and on, but as said to Scott: Intellect's value of a principally
obtainable objective reality has come to stay and will be part of the Q-
development forever after.
> 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?
If you ask me? YES!
> Acknowledging I'm not God,
You are a great metaphysician Gary and a pleasure to talk to.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST