Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:10:31 +0100
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:47:16 -0800
Lawrie Douglas wrote:
> Here's my contribution to the everything-nothing debate, and the attempt to
> define Quality.
snip....
> To acknowledge this, is to do away with the problem of trying to define
> "everything", and with it that of trying, in the interests of defining
> Quality, to isolate it from the common usage of the word. To say that,
> "Quality is everything," is not too obvious and vague to be of any worth.
> That nothing does not exist means that existence truly EXISTS. (Sorry, write
> in capitals, and you start start to sound bonkers, but you can't do italics
> in this format.) Existence must exist, for nothing does not. There has
> always been something here and always will.
snip....
Richard (or is it Lawrie?)
Welcome to the LilaSquad!
In an earlier entry in this thread I tried to directed the attention
to a conclusion (I believe) we have arrived at: Ideas, concepts -
symbolic language for short - including the above are Stable
Intellectual Patterns of Value (SIPOV). At that level "nothing and
everything" is as real as "matter" is at the Inorganic level, "life"
at the Bio level and "organizations" at the Social level.
Perhaps this is what you imply when you say...That nothing does not
exist, means that existence truly EXIST..etc, but I have the sinking
feeling of being back to old subjective or objective, existence or
nonexistence; one or zero. Exactly what the Metaphysics of Quality
proposes a relief from! I have been the terror (:-)) of this forum by
my jesuitical quest for purity and my thesis is: If the MOQ rejects the
subject/object division as the primary split, what is the use of
evoking it at every crossroad?
For example did Lars Marius Garshol open this year's mail with a quest
for what is REALLY objective and subjective. As examples of the first
class he listed numbers, maths and algebraic truths - 2+2=4, but as
stated above: Inside the MOQ, objectivity and subjectivity do not
apply. Nothing is REALLY this or that: All phenomenons, feelings,
sensations - everything finds its place inside one of the four
"dimensions" of value. Without this realization the MOQ becomes just
another strange theory of levels above and beyond understanding
I am not a complete "fundamentalist". The object apart from the
subject is necessary for perception of, and for thinking about
things and ideas, but to Western mind this division has achieved
metaphysical proportions; it became reality itself. The MOQ is a
movement away from this blind alley, a return to ..the oldest idea
there is ..as Pirsig say in LILA, while also a completely new
insight.
Samuel Palmer says in his paper "The Metaphysics of Quality" that it
cannot be used as a replacement for all pre-existing philosophies.
Well, it depends of how far back we want to go and what cultures to
include (the Aborigines of Australia may harbour a perfect MOQ for all
that I know), but I just can't see a smooth transition from existing
Western thought to the Quality idea.
Samuel touches our old quandary about sub- and superlevels. Atoms are
definitely Stable Inorganic Patterns of Value, and so are all energy
manifestations however fleeting and "virtual" - even Doug's VED
(remember, Pirsig's SIPOV has nothing to do with Aristotelian
"substance"), but above the Intellect is another matter. Platt Holden
suggested that MOQ itself can be seen as a budding new level. I
agree; if Intellect is viewed as Subject/Object-Metaphysics itself
and is transcended by the MOQ. Voila!
This is an intriguing but attractive development.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST