[MD] Does the MOQ invalidate Subjectivity?

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Ham,



Gene said:
> But how does the world perceive itself?
>
> Maybe it's all just a bunch of subjects interacting.

Steve said:
> That's pretty much how I interpret the MOQ. Reality
> composed of value is like saying that reality is
> composed of awareness. You have to be careful with
> words like "awareness" or "consciousness" since they
> imply a subject being aware of an object, and
> subjects and objects are secondary inferences in the
> MOQ.

Ham:

I don't know what you mean by "secondary inferences".  


Steve:

Secondy in the way that Paul Turner broke this quote down into two theses:
"The [first thesis of the] MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter.  The scientific community that has produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes 
 first and produces ideas.  However, as if to further the confusion, the 
 [second thesis of the] MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a 
 high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 67] 

So, Quality comes first which produces your idea that the subject comes first.


Ham:
Subjective awareness
of objects describes primary experience for me.  


Steve:
I'm quoting Paul here from a thread from a couple years ago about the individual in the MOQ. I guess you and Platt have been on this topic for a long time.

Paul said:
> The MOQ argues that experience must be the starting point of philosophy.
> Where did the subject come from? Did the subject exist before it had an
> experience? What was it doing before it had an experience? How does a
> subject know it was already there without experience?

Ham:
If anything is a "secondary
inference", it is a metaphysical ontology such as the MoQ or Essentialism.

Steve:

Agree that they ideas about experience that have to be preceeded by experience.


Ham:
Proprietary awareness, consciousness, or perception in actualized existence do, indeed, imply a "subject being aware".  However, physical reality is not composed of awareness.  

Steve:
"Reality is composed of awareness" is simply a metaphor that I find useful. To me it seems to be consistent with the MOQ as long as we don't take it too seriously.


Ham:
Our reality is a subject/object dichotomy, the objective part manifested as "beingness" to the subjective self.  Ultimate reality is not "composed of" awareness either, but encompasses it and is of the same essence.  (I call it "Absolute Sensibility".)

Steve:

This all sounds like nonsense to me as it would for me to throw out MOQ jargon to someone unfamiliar with it. I don't think there is any arguing about whether Essentialism or the MOQ is correct or incorrect. You either find its metaphors useful or you don't.

Steve:
> Imagining  the world as "subjects interacting" is a
> little problematic for that reason, but it sounds
> pretty consistent with Pirsig's idea of experienced
> reality as patterns of value.

Ham:

Steve, it would seem to me that calling inanimate objects "subjects
interacting" is a perversion of logic and common sense.  I think Pirsig
found it necessary to dismiss objectivity in order to "overcome" the
dichotomy (dualism).  But he would he would not have settled for
"interacting subjects", either -- although the notion of electrons and
amoeba "experiencing value" makes one wonder!

Steve:
That's exactly what made me wonder. It makes perfect sense to think of cause and effect relationships as preferences. "A causes B" becomes "B values precondition A" and none or our formulas change.


Ham:
I don't think we can dismiss the empirical truth of our reality: that it is
the conscious awareness of objective beingness (i.e., differentiated things experienced in a space/time universe).  

Steve:

Your statement is empirical in that it is consistent with experience but there is nothing empirical about calling it the "truth of our reality." I agree with Pirsig that multiple truths can coexist peacefully when you take the more radically empirical view that Quality comes first and the idea that "conscious awareness of objective beingness" is the "truth of reality" comes second.

Ham:
A composition is made up of discrete elements or parts.  So, it is illogical
to speak of the universe as "composed of" awareness.  

Steve:
No, that's what I mean--lots and lots of awarenesses inferred from patterns of value.

Ham:
But you still haven't provided a direct answer to the question: Does the MoQ
invalidate Subjectivity?

Steve:
The MOQ says that the subjectivite/objective knowledge distinction is a high quality intellectual pattern.

Regards,
Steve

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com