Hello fellow MoQ-focussers,
I really enjoyed this months discussion. I think
Philips question really touches the core of
Pirsigs 'Metaphysics of Quality'. In finding many
aspects of my personal thoughts to this question,
it is much easier for me to join in (at least). I
tend to integrate all aspects and fragments that
come to my mind not allowing myself to make an
absolute and easy distinction between relevant and
non-relevant aspects. For that reason I have
difficulties to come to an end at least (before
month is over :-) ).
In addition to what Diana, Glenn and Matthew said
about it, I tried to find out what exactly IS
SOM, and had to learn that it was not a common
concept. As far as I could see,
'Subject-Object-Metaphysics', the way Pirsig is
using it, is a new concept in this field.
Rene Descartes' philosophical works had been
called afterwards 'Substance-Metaphysics', which
is near to the Subject-Object-Metaphysics, we are
talking about (I guess). So what exactly is
'Metapysics'? After consulting a few books, I
would define 'Metaphysics' as a rational
(...physics) system stretching all over (meta)
whatever human sciences there are, comprising
them, giving them a kind of matrix, a structure to
fit in, but nevertheless could not be deduced
completely to the laws of natural sciences or
reasoning.
The reason now, that nobody ever before (really?)
had spoken of a metapysics based on the
subject-object idea, is IMO a kind of
contradiction lying in the combination of those
two concepts. The pronouncers of empiricism (Hume
etc.) fought fiercly against 'Metaphysics' as
being necessary in explaining their philosophical
model. If they would have succeeded with their
undertaking, their would have been no further need
of a metaphysics, because in that case everything
could have been deduced to facts by means of human
reasoning, leaving no space for anything 'meta'.
The ones building up a philosophical system based
on the interaction between a subject and an object
hardly would leave the ground of reasoning, if not
necessary. In calling their philosophical system a
'Metaphysics' they would admit, that it could not
be deduced completely to sciences. So for Pirsig
it is easy to speak of an SOM-position, because he
can see it! He's been building up an alternative
platform, which makes this pointing-at possible.
To look at the structure of our world from an
outer point of view. So in considering metaphysics
in general as a fuzzy zone between the two poles
reasoning on the one hand, and belief on the other
hand, Pirsig is pointing at our world, assuming
that he really has an transcendented point of
view, saying that todays philosophy of life still
depends on belief. For his Metaphysics of quality
he sees no reason to withdraw it from a rest of
Unmeasurable, Unprovable and Unexplainable. Second
Pirsig summarizes all those groups representing
for him the carriers of all kinds of bureaucratic,
technocratic, (politicocratic, economocratic)
systems in western societys in his SOM-concept. I
guess this is the reason that one easily could
miss the point.
(a)The subject-object metaphysics (SOM) that seems
to attract so much blame
is also described as, 'a straw man, a position
held by no-one'. Who exactly
does hold a purely SOM position?
Those very different fractions of western
philosophy of life do not see themselves as a
coherent group, because of many small or bigger
differences between each fraction. So from inside
of any kind of western philosophy, it is almost
impossible to see them as being parts of an
all-comprising thinking-tradition, which could be
traced back to Aristotle. Who could really look
from the outside, standing inside? Not me, I must
admit (see also Wittgensteins - standing close to
Bertrand Russels point of view - last chapter
of'TractatusPhilosopicus'). Pirsig did, and he
paid bitterly with the loss of his identity. All
we can do is describing vaguely the consequences,
that could be seen in contrast to Pirsigs benefit,
his MoQ. Nevertheless there is no way to leave it
completely; we have to do this in gradual steps.
We all have the vague feeling,it is my personal
experience many people have this feeling indeed,
that something is wrong about the way we live and
think, but the attempt to stretch out your arm and
catch it, is nearly impossible or it contains a
piece of yourselves. 'Well no, this isn't the
thing that I meant to get hold of!' , you might
say in this moment.
And here he is again, the giant. The SOM has not
been invented from a secret group of powerful
people to rule us (it is not new, I know), but it
is inside of us and we all are in fact elements of
the SOM-giant. We can make out certain
differences, can make out more or less sympathetic
people, but seldom can point at somebody, saying
'Look, he is the incarnation of those, who made
our society what it looks like today!'.
Just like Andreas I tried to clarify for myself,
what is meant exactly by 'Straw-man'. I could not
fix it exactly, blaming this on a false
translation, but now I see that it is a useful
metaphor. You can hit him as often as you like, he
won't beat back. From a distance you cannot see
that it is not a real person; only in approach you
identify it as mere chimera. But who has been
putting him there afterall? No real person, I
guess. We all did and we all beat him up; it is an
absurdity. In fact I do know some people who
represent more or less a pure SOM-position, but
nevertheless most of them would join in the chorus
of the 'social-coldness'.
Whereever I look in the world, I can make out
roughly two kinds of people: the more progressive
ones on the one hand and the more conservative
ones on the other hand. I would mark the
progressive ones as being more dynamic, in the
sense of MoQ, and the conservatives being more
static. Each group fulfilling its function. So IMO
the conservatives, especially the pedantics have
been building up, and will do so in future,
systems,of which we would say they are based on
SOM. For them, everything could be explained by
means of sciences. If not today, yet
someday;although this is a point of view rarely to
be found amongst the more important scientist.
Those People (the conservatives) have a strong
tendancy to stick to so-called proved facts and
are less sensible to new impulse, to dynamic
quality. So there is no wonder, that for them,
between subject and object, B follows A,... and
the like, is no space for dynamic quality ('...all
there is...').
(b) If nobody, or very few people, who or what
are we criticising?
We are criticising the powerful SOM-giant,
especially his rigid static parts. Now and then we
are pointing at SQ-People, in case this is
obvious, but it seldom is. I must admit I have
problems with this part of the question and I'm
not going to fill this gap with just anything.
(c)Who completely denies the existence of
Quality?
Same problem here: About what kind of quality are
we talking then? The MoQ-Quality? The existence of
MoQ-Quality would be neglected by a large majority
of people in our societies, that is for sure. The
more I deal with MoQ and it's consequences, the
more I consider it to be a kind of pantheism (John
Beasley) or at least I feel it to be very near to
this (No bad feeling at all, although I didn't
meant to get there).So in the sense of 'Good (God)
is a noun' we can find lots of people, who feel
Quality.
The feeling, the awareness of something being good
or bad, in forms of adjectives or attributes, is
something nearly everybody has. So dependent on
what you consider as Quality, the answer can be
much different.
It may be remarked that Pirsig himself did not
intended to fully replace SOM by MoQ. It's only a
necessary expansion and correction of SOM. The MoQ
still comprises the SOM; it's not standing in
contradiction to SOM.
Not at least a satisfying answer for myself, but
interesting to deal upon anyway.
Have a good time,
regards
JoVo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:19 BST