From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Fri Oct 08 2004 - 19:34:25 BST
On Oct 7, 2004, at 1:49 PM, Scott Roberts wrote:
> Mel,
>
> [Scott prev:]> > Yes. The trouble is that the word 'Quality' is
> insufficient unless it is
>>> buttressed with a word like 'Intellect', where Peirce's semiotic
>>> triads
>>> come more obviously into play. There is no value unless there are
>>> particulars AND universals AND interpretants, where each one exists
>>> only
>> in
>>> relation to the other two. If you've got relationships or forms, and
>> you've
>>> got value, then you've got intellect. But see below about the word
>>> 'intellect'.
>>
>> mel:
>> This is not about Peirce or his conceptions.
>> It is about what comes before...
>
> [Scott:] If you are referring to so-called immediate/pure experience,
> it is
> about that. If I say "Wow! That sunset is beautiful", while it is true
> that
> the beauty occurred at the "wow" moment, and I am only thinking of that
> beauty in the "That sunset is beautiful" moment, that doesn't mean
> there
> was no Peircean triad in the "wow" moment. There was. There had to be
> me
> and the sunset, and the general system of colors, shapes, and so
> forth, for
> that "wow" moment to occur. If any one were missing, there would be no
> value.
>
Hi Scott,
I don't know anything about Peircean triads, but I can tell that you
are disagreeing with the most fundamental postulate of the MOQ. When
Pirsig was faced with the dilemma "is the quality in the subject or the
object" he came up with a rather unique solution upon which he built an
entire metaphysics. This discussion group is about seeing where making
Pirsig's "Copernican inversion" takes us. If you don't want to play,
fine. In the MOQ, all your talk about universals and particulars may
constitute high quality ideas. They just have nothing to do with the
MOQ. It is pointless to argue about whether Quality really does
precede subjects and objects. It is an intellectual postulate that you
either find useful or not. If you don't and if you aren't interested
in seeing where making that assumption can take us, then you're in the
wrong place. I'm not suggesting that you leave, only that what you are
arguing may be irrelavent to a discussion group concerned with the MOQ.
Regards,
Steve
I love this bit and think it's relevent to some of the discussions
going on here recently on what is meant by intellect, the MOQ view of
scientific materialism, religion, and the Quality postulate:
"The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called empiricism. It
claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by
thinking about what the senses provide. Most empiricists deny the
validity
of any knowledge gained through imagination, authority, tradition, or
purely theoretical reasoning. They regard fields such as art, morality,
religion, and metaphysics as unverifiable. The Metaphysics of Quality
varies from this by saying that the values of art and morality and even
religious mysticism are verifiable, and that in the past they have been
excluded for metaphysical reasons, not empirical reasons. They have been
excluded because of the metaphysical assumption that all the universe is
composed of subjects and objects and anything that can't be classified
as a
subject or an object isn't real. There is no empirical evidence for this
assumption at all. It is just an assumption.
It is an assumption that flies outrageously in the face of common
experience. The low value that can be derived from sitting on a hot
stove
is obviously an experience even though it is not an object and even
though
it is not subjective. The low value comes first, then the subjective
thoughts that include such things as stove and heat and pain come
second.
The value is the reality that brings the thoughts to mind.
There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished
from
anything else it doesn't exist. To this the Metaphysics of Quality adds
a
second principle: if a thing has no value it isn't distinguished from
anything else. Then, putting the two together, a thing that has no value
does not exist. The thing has not created the value. The value has
created the thing. When it is seen that value is the front edge of
experience, there is no problem for empiricists here. It simply restates
the empiricists' belief that experience is the starting point of all
reality. The only problem is for a subject-object metaphysics that calls
itself empiricism.
This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality is to
trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike
subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist
on a
single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the
ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of
things-that
which corresponds to the "objective" world-and all other constructions
are
unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality
then
it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one
doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks instead the highest quality
intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past
is
any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as
useful until something better comes along. One can then examine
intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an art
gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the "real"
painting,
but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many
sets
of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have
more
quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our
history and current patterns of values.
Or, using another analogy, saying that a Metaphysics of Quality is false
and a subject-object metaphysics is true is like saying that rectangular
coordinates are true and polar coordinates are false. A map with the
North
Pole at the center is confusing at first, but it's every bit as correct
as
a Mercator map. In the Arctic it's the only map to have. Both are simply
intellectual patterns for interpreting reality and one can only say
that in
some circumstances rectangular coordinates provide a better, simpler
interpretation.
The Metaphysics of Quality provides a better set of coordinates with
which
to interpret the world than does subject-object metaphysics because it
is
more inclusive. It explains more of the world and it explains it
better."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 08 2004 - 20:02:08 BST