Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:58:49 +0100
Fri,12 Dave (>) and Doug (>>) wrote:
> > Does Quality inhere in objects?
> > -- SOM view: Yes! All objects are defined by their inherent physical
> > properties.
Physical properties, yes, but qualities - in the moral sense? NO!
The very reason that Pirsig rewrote metaphysics was that the SOM does
not recognize values. Within it, values are suposed to be JUST what
we subjectively think about the real objective world.
> > -- MoQ view: No! All patterns of value are in Quality. Patterns of
> > value are defined in Quality by their interrelationship properties with
> > other patterns of value.
Yes, but a bit unnecessary complicated for this simple question.
Objects are Static Inorganic Patterns of Value. Only in
aggeregates of more than one static level need we speak about
interrelationships.
> On one hand, the quote Bo posted from ZZM which talks about the analogues
> humans create and then call reality. MoQ is also a analogue and as such is a
> description of reality not reality itself.
> So in that sense no "object" has Quality because quality is a human mental
> analogue of what is.
The said quotation was my key to Pirsig's ideas, but ZMM was about
his first "brainstorm" and not all of it can be aligned (without a
little jiggling) with the later fullfledged MOQ.
> But on the other hand, Pirsig, in his SODV article, discussing Bohr's
> experiments maintains that there had to be data input into the experiment and
> the source of the data was Dynamic Quality. So in this case it appears that
> qualities are resident in the external "object".
>
> So at this point in time here's my take. Everything has inherent Qualities.
> All of these qualities make up the el giangundo field that is everything.
> There qualities that are of and discrete to any individual human and qualities
> that are of and discrete to all things external to that individual. From that
> point of view when we ask the question: How do we know this? We then move
> into the MoQ analogues which are called Static and Dynamic Quality. In Static
> Quality we don't know reality as it is "a priori", we each construct our
> pattern of static values which we call reality. Everything outside that
> pattern is unknown to us and is in the overall field of Quality. My latest
> thinking is that this "unknown to us" Quality field is not just Dynamic
> Quality but a combine of "Static Quality unknown to us" and Dynamic Quality
> which is truely unknown to all. So I feel the potential exists for both static
> and dynamic quality events through which the individual's static patterns of
> values can change. Hopefully to a closer correlation to what actually is.
>
Dave. What you write here (and in the rest of the post) is
terribly important and fundamental to what we are struggling to
understand. At first it struck me as similar to the solution I
arrived at after the map/terrain scare, but the next moment it
seemed subject/object. This I must think deeply over - something
which requires a long walk. Right now we have a strong sou'western
with heavy rain, so let it remain suspended for a while.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:26 CEST