[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

Thanks Bo,
Responses inserted ...

On 1/11/06, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Ian
>
> On 10 Jan. ian glendinning wrote:
>
> > You said
> > "Ian believes my SOL to be (the 4th level seen as) "objectivism",
> > while it really is S/O-ism!!!!!!"
>
> > I know. An "ism" that makes a distinction between subjects and
> > objects, therefore depends on recognition of "objects".
> > GOF-Objectivism is GOF-S/O ism - it recognises objects distinct from
> > non-objects.
>
> A mere distinction between subjects and objects sounds a bit
> platidudinous.

[IG] - You know Pirsig's words on platitudes ?
"Schopenhauer said that truth is that short interval between the time
an idea is a heresy and the time it is a platitude, but the MOQ has
managed to be both a heresy and a platitude simultaneously, depending
on which culture you view it from." (You'll find that on Ant's Intro
page.)

> It's the realization of an objective reality
> independent of subjective human opinion. Read the below from
> ZMM and you will understand what the SOL is about.
>
>    Now Plato's hatred of the Sophists makes sense. He and
>    Socrates are defending the immortal principles of the
>    Cosmologists against what they consider to be the
>    decadence of the Sophists. Truth, knowledge. That which
>    is independent of what anyone thinks about it. The ideal
>    that Socrates died for. The ideal that Greece alone
>    possesses for the fist time in the history of the world. It is
>    still a very fragile thing. It can disappear completely
>    [...........] Plato condemns the Sophists because they
>    threaten mankind's first beginning grasp of the idea of
>    truth. (ZMM p 368)

[IG] - I recognise the passage, but I don't get your specific point here ?

>
> An aside here: From this it's clear that the Plato vs Sophist
> struggle is an inter-intellectual one between its own objective and
> subjective camps.

[IG] - Fair enough, but these are ancient primitive views of objects
and subjects - something we're trying to improve on, no ?

> "Non-objects" is even sillier. In physics there are lots of non-
> objects: Energy, forces, fields ...etc. but these are of course as
> objective as any phenomena.

[IG] - It's frightening how much you miss the point Bo, makes me feel
so inadequate. Here goes.Of course these can all be seen as objects
(in reality, in nature, in physics, in the nightclub, anywhere !) They
could of course in various situations also be seen as subjects. The
problem is these are both views from an S/O (or as I said Objective,
when as a subject one excludes oneself from the objective view)
standpoint. Seeing anything as subjects and/or objects is that
GOF-SOMist viewpoint. I just threw "non-objects" in to get you off
that ancient treadmill. Surely MoQ'ers see the world fundamentally as
quality interactions, not any kind of conceptual objects. The S/O
language is just a fossil, a static layer (convenient to use in
everyday conversations, but nothing metaphysical.)

>
> > Please engage Bo, rather than being dismissive, or I can sympathise
> > why Squonk resorts to personal abuse :-)
>
> The wear and tear shows and I hope you'll forgive my style.
[IG] I know, I know, me too :-)

>
> Bo
>