Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:11:19 +0100
Thu, 28 May 1998 22:57:02 +0000
Horse wrote:
> I would propose only a small change to Theo's definition to produce:
> " A subject object metaphysics is any one of a family of VALUE FREE
> 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."
>
> Apologies to Theo for hijacking (and adding very little to) his
> definition. Hope you don't mind.
Hi Horse and Stable :-)
Your addition to Theo's is a wee superfluous, the value freedom is
inherent in the Subject-Object split. Yet you won't find a single
person in this world adhering to a valuefree world view (you
won't find any SOM-ist for that matter. No, no, there's an enormous
amount of talk about values.
In Norway the new Christian Democrat government has even appointed a
national value commission, and much hot air and reams of documents
are produced about values: national values, old values, traditional
values, Christian values, common values. Values, values wherever one
turns (anyone familiar with Robert Musil's "Man without Qualities"?).
This grave fault is inherent in Subject-Object metaphysics, but it
first became a nagging problem when the empiricist philosophers
proved that qualities can't be found in the so-called objective
reality and ipso facto nowhere because the subjective is by
definition irrelevant. But this remained a paradox because no-one
managed to - or dared to - question the metaphysics behind it.
Or rather: there was no mtps. IT WAS THE WAY THE WORLD HAD BEEN
CREATED!
This is why I am a little wary of Fintan's and Jonathan's efforts to
create impressive Pattern Recognition Logarithms theories and Quantum
Physics allusion. All right, to make an impression on our SOM-
steeped contemporaries we have to "howl with the wolves", but the
Quality idea is so horribly simple that the smallest child can
understand the Q-world (LILA page 106), and I fear this will clutter
the simplicity and create an new scolasticism.
Well, there will be time for discussing these things as new topics
are brought up. What all this amounts to is that I feel that Theo's
original definition is OK. (so was Diana's) Your contribution in
sparsing it out has been great, Horse.
Thank you.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:20 CEST