Greetings,
Magnus, you will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with your view that "most materialists
think it (Quality) is either objective or subjective." Well actually I would change that to most
materialists who understand what they are talking about, but this is a minor point. as popularity
polls amongst the masses never made any position a good one or a bad one.
The prevailing scientific view is summed up quite well by A.F Chalmers:
"In relativity theory, interpreted realistically, properties such as mass and volume no longer exist
but become relations between objects and a reference frame and can be changed without any physical
interaction."
Or Feyerabend:
"The new conceptual theory . . . does not just deny the existence of classical states of affairs, it
does not even permit us to formulate statements expressing such states of affairs . . . . the
positivist scheme of progress with its "Popperian spectacles" breaks down."
I urge you not to get caught up in the language (remember that the terms subject and object are
useful descriptions of human reality) but to look at what is actually being said about the
'objectivity' you ascribe to materialists. If Bo is right in his assertion that, "the whole
subject-objectivization is Intellect," then he has materialist friends who agree entirely. All
properties are no longer ascribed to objects or subjects but are looked at in terms of relationships
of (to use the MoQ term) patterns of value.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
<mailto:struan@clara.net>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
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 - 16:02:48 BST