From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 20:26:00 BST
Hi Platt, Squonk, all,
Platt said:
> I'm entirely sympathetic to your aesthetic emphasis of the MOQ. I think
> you're on to something very important, but find your explanations hard
> to follow. For example:
>
squonk:
>> There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ.
>> Therefore, there cannot be any objectivity, or subjectivity either.
>
Platt:
> There are plenty of subjects and objects in the MOQ. Pirsig admits as
> much. One can barely utter a sentence without employing subjects and
> objects. Our language is fundamentally based on the S/O split. I don't
> think denying this is helpful in promoting understanding of the MOQ.
>
Steve:
I agree. I think "objects" can be kept in MOQ thinking understood as
patterns of value rather than as the much more esoteric though more
generally accepted concept of "substance."
I'm not ruling out Squonk's "no subjects and objects in the MOQ," either,
but like Platt, I can't see what that could mean.
Squonk:
>> So, a search for objectivity is futile, and supposing subjective quality
>> presupposes a subject.
>
Platt:
> Objectivity, as Steve has eloquently pointed out, is based on
> measurement. Far from being futile, measurement (objectivity) is the
> basis of science which has brought untold benefits to mankind.
Last week I visited an astro-physicist friend of mine named Chris who worked
on the recently published research on "dark energy." (You may have seen my
friend's boss on Letterman talking about it.)
My wife was asking what "dark energy" or "dark matter" really is. (My ears
perked up at the words "really is.") Chris explained that we just don't
know. You can't see it, that's why we call it "dark." We only know it
exists by measuring it's effects. (Dark matter is inferred by the dimple it
makes in the fabric of space-time or something like that). My wife began to
ask about possible theories for what it "really is."
I interrupted, stating that all we can ever have are effects, and my wife
immediately warned Chris that I was about to "get all philosophical." You
can't ever talk about what something "really is", I said, beyond the
measurements and predictions you can make and verify about it. The "it" is
inferred from the measurements. My wife objected, what about that plant
over there. That's not just an effect, it's really there.
I asked, "but would you say it's really green? What is it made of? Atoms?
Green atoms??"
I was eventually able to convince my astro-physicist friend of my point of
view (My wife is a tougher sell), but I found it interesting that
scientists are struggling with such questions (what it "really is") in what
seems to me to be a philosophically unsophisticated way rather than being
content with finding new and better ways to make measurements and then
making and verifying predictions.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 20:25:27 BST