1. JONATHAN ANALYSES THE QUALITY=REALITY EQUATION
2. LIST MANAGEMENT (Bodvar, Mary, Horse, Diana)
I'm leaving the 3 vs. 4 levels discussion for another day
=========Part 1============================
Hi Paul N, Kilian, Platt, Lithien, Glove, Xcto, Mary, (Donny) and other
Lilacs,
(BTW who started the cute "Lilacs", or should it be LilaQs?)
First Paul, you are brave to come right out and challenge the Pirsigian
dogma of Quality being neither subjective nor objective. All the points
you raise are valid, but I understand that Pirsig gave up on this route
when he realised that the SO division itself couldn't easily be
classified as subjective vs. objective.
Mary wrote (17 Dec):
<<<So, you go to this guy and you
ask him, "Is the Subject Object Metaphysics true?"
He says, "Yes it is".
So then you ask, "Is the Metaphysics of Quality True?"
He says, "Yes it is".>>>
Maybe Mary's questions are actually much more complicated than they
look. Let's break the first one down into two questions:-
1. Is the Subject vs. Object distinction true?
2. What system of evaluation do we use to answer question 1?
(That's what Donny's been saying for months, tho' it took me some time
to see it).
SOM is using subject-object logic (SOL) to analyse SOL. Many
philosophers have realised how poor SOL is as a tool for analysing
itself. It's like trying to look at yourself with no mirror or camera.
We ultimately look for the metaphysical framework that looks most
VALUABLE. This to me is Pirsig's basis.
Platt repeated the MoQ dogma:-
>> First, Quality = Reality
PAUL N. (17 Dec)
>this is the heart and soul, the scaffolding and foundation of your
>argument. And i can't agree with it. Pirsig got Q to equal reality by
>first accepting Q to be something that was niether objective or
>SUBJECTIVE and hence transcended them both (so that Q could eventually
>equal reality). You cant just take Q=R to be a tautological statement
>to just throw around. you must prove it.
To prove something, you must first know what it means (and then what
would constitute a proof, right Donny?).
Are Q and R exactly equivalent? What does each mean?
Let repeat definitions of DQ/SQ from the July discussion).
Ken Clark (19th July):-
>DQ = Possibility
>SQ = Realized possibility.
(My alternative version would use the word Potential instead of
possibility).
Either way, DQ comes out as UNREALised. Can DQ be part of reality if it
is UNREALised?
If not, then reality is SQ only. (i.e.. Q and R not equal).
But that would be a "frozen" reality, not the ever-changing dynamic
reality we know.
IMO opinion, the DQ/SQ split is thus necessary for the "Quality=Reality"
equation to make any sense, and even then it may be misleading. In any
case, the equation may not really be an equation, but more analogous to
a definition/instruction in a computer program like "N=N+1". That's
perfectly valid programming, but false mathematics.
By analogy, our equation should be reversed as "Reality=Quality" where
reality, on the left, is the result of the quality operation on the
right.
======Part 2=============================
LIST MANAGEMENT, RULES etc.
Bodvar's post just arrived about setting some limits to what and how we
post. I mostly agree with him, certainly about minimising quotes and
attributing them properly.
I also tend to agree with his "1 post a day" rule - a policy which I
thought about adopting myself, but lacked the discipline. There's a lot
to be said for digesting a post and allowing others to follow up before
continuing the thread.
On the other hand, with several thread running
concomitantly, there is also something to be said for separating one's
responses rather than bundling it all into a single post.
What does one put as the subject line?
Mary's response also just came in her. I also agree with her about not
"squashing" the debate with rules. Self-censorship is part of the
answer.
In the old days when Diana moderated the list, there was a natural
rhythm, since she only forwarded stuff to the list once or twice a day.
HORSE, as "technical operator", could the server be set to forward posts
only once a day instead of immediately on receipt? How do others feel
about such an enforced reduction in our dynamism?
Regards,
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:45 BST