[MD] Does the MOQ invalidate Subjectivity?

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Ham,

Ham:
[That mind and matter are ] "Separated by two levels of evolution" implies a difference in time placement, which I don't think Pirsig intended but you still push for. Surely you're not suggesting that the difference between mind and matter is  the sequence of their appearance.  (I know that materialists consider mind a "highly organized" form of matter, but I doubt that this is how Pirsig meant to define his Quality levels.)

Steve:
To the degree that the MOQ describes an evolutionary hierarchy it does indeed depend on a concept of time.


note 90.    "Within the MOQ the idea that static patterns of value start with the inorganic level is considered to be a good idea. But the MOQ itself doesn’t start before sentience. The MOQ, like science, starts with human experience. Remember the early talk in ZMM about Newton’s Law of Gravity? Scientific laws without people to write them are a scientific impossibility."

You are right that Pirsig does not take the materialist view of mind.

When I said that mind and matter are separated  by two levels, I was not saying that the difference is simply that one appeared later than the other. I was trying to point out how different they are.


Ham, previously:
They represent the dichotomy of existential
experience.

Steve:
This is an axiom in your philosophy, but is it the
only way to slice experience? You seem to be saying it
is, but there is no evidence for that claim.

Ham:
Obviously, there are many "slicers" and many ways to "slice".  I don't see any point in attempting to slice a universal system that is already highly differentiated.  

Steve:
As I understand you, you are saying that in your philosophy reality comes already sliced into subjects and objects. Pirsig makes his first cut of reality into dynamic and static aspects of Quality.

Ham:
If we need to classify specific types of organic or
inorganic matter, scientists are much more efficient in doing that
philosophers.  My college Biology and Chemistry textbooks consisted largely of information by category.  For me, it's sufficient to say that the
fundamental division in experienced reality is between subjective awareness and objective beingness.

Steve:
The moq does not classify types of inorganic matter.


Ham, previously:
It is a logical fallacy to posit [mind and matter] as two levels of value;
first, because they are not value [and second, because they are altogether
different phenomena.]

Steve:
I'm not sure what you mean by the "Pirsig/MOQ says
game." Do you mean that I'm not saying what my views
are? You can take it to be the same thing as "Pirsig
says and I agree that."

Ham:
If your views are totally dependent on what "Prisig says", then you have
answered your own question.  I am not bound to the beliefs or statements of others.  I consider this submitting to "indoctrination" as opposed to being a free thinker.


Steve:
I just thought it went without saying that I agree with my own interpretation of Pirsig.




Steve:
[Pirsig] is not defining Value as the pragmatic test of
truth. He's saying that truth is an aesthetic judgment
and can be understood as Value. Value is part of the
pragmatic test of truth as in James' assertion that
truth is that which proves itself to be good by way of
belief.

Ham:
You quoted RMP as saying "Value, the pragmatic test of truth, is also the primary empirical experience."  If "the pragmatic test of truth" is not the author's definition of Value in this statement, either the author doesn't mean what he says or I don't understand English.

Steve:
What I'm saying is, he's defining truth, not defining Value.


Steve:
Finally, if in your philosophy the subject and object
are primary and exist concurrently, and values are
sensed by the subject through a special aesthetic
sense, where does Quality reside, in the subject or
the object? As you say value is sensed by the subject,
I assume value must reside in the object. But if value
is objective then why do different people come to
different conclusions about what objects have quality?

Ham:
Steve, my Value concept is explained in great detail in a thesis which you claim to have read.  

Steve:
I never read it or said I did. I didn't understand what you quoted and wouldn't expect to understand your thesis.

Regards,
Steve

 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups gets better. Check out the new email design. Plus there’s much more to come.