Paul and Group,
Paul Nestadt wrote:
> Why can't Quality just be subjective?
Try the following thought experiments;
Imagine a reality where Quality was Subjective. If Quality were subjective,
then what is the basis for commonly shared perceptions other than chance? Our
reality does not seem to support this view. You, Me, the vast bulk of humanity
has very definite common perceptions.
Examples:
"Having strong sulfuric acid poured on your genitals is painful."
"Dead people type poorly."
"Bill Clinton is currently the President of the United States of America."
"House cats make poor Quarterbacks."
"My society or culture is normal."
"Baboons are seldom consumed by Musk Oxen."
I think most people would agree with these propositions. Were Quality subjective
people should differ considerably. Such constructs as Language would seem
unlikely. Were Quality or the flux of reality that we draw our experiences from
be subjective then why do so many peoples perceptions agree?
Now let us consider the other side of the coin. Supose Quality was Objective.
If Quality is Objective then we should simply be able to pop into our labratory,
perform an experiment, and prove conclusively the following statements true or
false.
Examples:
"The artist formerly known as 'Prince' is the greatest musical genius of the
20th century."
"Space exploration is a good use of taxes."
"Nook-Nook, God of Sleeping Fish, created the world and punishes us if we are
bad."
"Dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki was a good thing."
"The IRS is a fair and just organization."
"People with a body mass greater than 200 kilograms are sexy."
I think is safe to say people would evaluate the truth these statements
differently The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to empiricism. That is
knowledge arises from experience, and while we have many shared experiences, we
also differ in our interpretations of experiences. Still while we differ in our
evaluations of these experiences, we generally agree that we did experience some
kind of event. Thus Quality is neither Subjective nor Objective. Consider
Pirsig's comments on Art; While people may differ on which Art they value, to
insist that one particular work of Art is true and all others false is
ludicruous. Depending on what you value, you may consider a by Metallica
concert to be a high quality event and a Glen Miller concert to be a low quality
event, but whatever your evaluation of the event, who would deny that they
experienced nothing?
Of course there is one other possibility; Perhaps you Paul, are the only
conscious being in the entire universe and we all dreams of your mind! This
would make everything subjective or objective as you wish, because there would
be only one subject to experience anything. Apart from what I have presented
above I know of no good proof for this problem. The agreement of our shared
perception of Quality I think there is no way to prove that anything outside
your perception. The branch of philosophy that holds that only you exist is
called "solipsism". While it's tenents cannot be disproven it makes discussing
philosophy rather pointless, and in philosophical circles if someone calls you a
solipsist it is generally considered an insult.
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 - 16:02:49 BST