Theo Schramm (theoschramm@hotmail.com)
Mon, 25 May 1998 17:17:04 +0100
Greetings,
First an aside which has some bearing on our discussions of what is and
is not SOM although at first sight it appears to belong to a later stage
of the program.
JONATHAN:
"The quality judgement can only occur when an "intelligent" observer
comes along.
Quality has to involve recognition of meaning. Otherwise it's like
talking about the proverbial tree falling in the forest. Pirsig's MoQ
has pointed out that there isn't a single observer or evaluation system.
It is evaluated by individuals, society and "the intellect" etc"
For me this seems to be going off in completely the wrong direction.
Quality MUST be prior to recognition. The above is saying that "Quality
has to involve recognition of meaning" which translates as, "Quality is
in the mind of the observer, or observers," (cognisation and
re-cognisation, by definition, require mind) which in turn translates as
subjectivism and idealism. Quality and value existed billions of years
before any intelligent observer, and the organic level had more value
than the inorganic level long before we evaluated it.
FINTAN:
"Is there an objective Quality in existence AT THAT TIME, or is the
Quality judgement only possible much later in the evolution of earth."
Hugo seems to be saying in his definition of SOM that the question
Fintan poses above rests upon a subject/object split and he clearly has
a point. What is meant by "objective Quality" here? The presumption of
objectiveness underlies the question. This is a discussion for a later
part of the program but it helps me to see where Hugo is coming from.
HUGO:
"A subject-object metaphysics is a would-be explanation of reality,
which takes some subject-object split as a tacit presumption. By 'some
subject-object split' we understand the splitting of experience into the
experienced (object) and the experiencing (subject). This splitting of
experience allows for self-reflective experience, the subject
experiencing itself as an object. By 'tacit presumption' here, we mean
something which is taken as necessarily fundamental and not to be
transgressed. Taking something as fundamental, which by nature is a
split, forces a subject-object metaphysics towards one of the two
extremes, in search
for a single coherent explanation of reality. One extreme takes the
experiencing subject as primary, the other takes the experienced object
as primary. "
DIANA
"The subject-object metaphysics is the assumption that reality is
divided into two separate and irreducible realms of subject and object.
The subject being that which experiences and the object being that which
is experienced. From this assumption arises the idea that there is a
subjective reality experienced by each individual and an objective
reality which exists independent of any individual. "
>From these I offer:
" A subject object metaphysics is any one of a family of explanations of
reality which rest upon the tacit assumption that there are two separate
and irreducible fundamentals in the way we perceive the universe, namely
the experiencing subject and the experienced object. Although not
necessarily recognised by its proponents this 'A or not A' position
leads to an irreconcilable tension between subjective reality and
objective reality with each vying for dominance within the subject
object metaphysical system."
Fire away.
Theo
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST