Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Wed, 27 May 1998 02:51:22 +0100
-----Original Message-----
From: Theo Schramm <theoschramm@hotmail.com>
To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 7:15 PM
Subject: LS Re: Explain the subject-object metaphysics
...
>>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.
>For me this seems to be going off in completely the wrong direction.
>Quality MUST be prior to recognition.
I really feel that I have to step in here and defend what I wrote.
Perhaps I made a mistake in using the term "intelligent" - we were at
the time discussing the quality in an impressionist painting. Perhaps I
should rather have used the term sensitive or receptive. If Fintan's
caveman had used the painting to hit someone on the head, this would
constitute some sort of recognition of quality, but not recognition of
the artistic quality implicit in the example.
The way the observer reacts to the painting is preconditioned by both
hard-wiring and his prior experience (like in "intelligent systems").
I disagree that quality must precede recognition - this would place it
in the object! I would say that quality IS recognition - it is an event.
>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.
Only if you look at things in the framework that Pirsig rejects.
Quality isn't IN the observer. The observer is a participant in the
Quality event.
I just took another look at Pirsig's paper on the web site at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670/emmpaper.html
- It's worth taking note of his comments and diagrams about perception
(cognisation if you prefer). The reality we know indeed resides in our
minds, but it is constructed by our experience of meaningful events.
>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.
The potential of molecules to organise into organisms had no existence
until that potential was realised. Or maybe it had no quality!!! Isn't
that what Pirsig kept trying to say. Quality is existence itself.
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST