[MD] From each... to each

[Heather Perella]

Hello,

>  [Arlo]
> > Is man...an objective observer, simply observing
> reality and describing it in a
>  > unbiased and unobstructed way?
> 
> People fall along a spectrum from objective to
> non-objective, some are far enough toward the
> objective end of the spectrum to be considered
> objective (though not, of course, perfectly so),
> others not.  Sometimes we can identify our biases
> (otherwise, how could we know we have them?).

     Your use of objective and subjective or
non-objective or spectrum of objectivity is very
confusing.  That's the whole point as dmb as said
earlier for Pirsig's quality.  Your none use of
quality terminology and sticking with the
Subject/Object Metaphysics is an argument against the
MOQ.  Didn't know if you realized this or not?
 
>  [Arlo] 
> > Experience does not tell you "wolves have sharp
> teeth". Experience tells you 
> > "low quality situation". Language is a cultural
> attempt to codify this 
> > experience into symbolic representations. We have
> words like "wolf", "sharp" 
> > and "teeth" because these have cultural value for
> us. 
> 
> Sometimes a wolf's having sharp teeth is a good
> thing for us, sometimes not.  Either way, the wolf's
> teeth are still sharp.  The first person to discover
> this, did not learn it from the language or from the
> culture, but from experience.

     Yes and that is a quality experience, but did
anybody believe him/her or not?  Do we all have to go
out and get bit by a wolf to know that a wolf's teeth
are sharp?  We could communicate this and describe
this experience in a varied way, but one of those ways
is 'they hurt!'  Thus, the intellectual level of
quality has to be accepted by the social level for any
language or culture to come to the consensus that the
biological level of wolf's teeth - hurt!  The
intellectual level of the person bitten by the wolf
puts this experience into words.  For this experience
to live on into human society so everybody doesn't
have to go and get bitten by a wolf to know that their
teeth hurt, this intellectual creature put into words
the experience and shared this with society.  It is
the intellectual level that can staticly identify this
experience on the biological level, but since the
levels can not be clashing or interacting with each
other without going through another level that is
in-between (intellectual can identify biological
level, but this will not work - ever- in an orderly
manner that lasts because the societal level is what
manages the biological level).  Therefore the
intellectual level identifies, but the societal level
keeps this static connection operational and society
must condone the intellectual morality of the
intellectual level and to do so the society must ok
that the biological level of wolf's sharp teeth are
sharp and at that moment we have what was a DQ
experience, identified by an intellect, that is put
into words and language for the rest of the culture to
know that wolf's teeth are sharp and the biological
level of wolf's teeth will last staticly
intellectually, as long as, the societal level allows
such to happen, and the morality of the levels is kept
intact.  This is how I understand Pirsig's SQ, DQ,
levels, morality, and even the value of the intellect,
society, and biological level to staticly latch this
experience of wolf's teeth being sharp.

SA

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