[MD] subject / object logic

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>:

> [Platt, to Ham]:
> > Apparently you are unfamiliar with Pirsig's rationale for
> > extending the meaning of morality. ...
> >
> > "The idea that the world is composed of nothing but moral
> > value sounds impossible at first. Only objects are supposed
> > to be real. 'Quality' is supposed to be just a vague fringe
> > word that tells what we think about objects."
> >
> > He then proceeds to explain why morality better explains
> > the concepts of  "substance" and "cause" --  foundations of
> > the subject/object worldview.

[Ham] 
> What I see as Pirsig's "rationale" is to re-arrange the attributes of 
> existence to invent a new perspective.

Yes, a new perspective that overcomes the failure of subject-object metaphysics
to 1) unite quantum uncertainty with the certainty of a cause-effect world, and
2) integrate the sciences and humanities. 

> Like the cartographer who, feeling a 
> bit tipsy one day, looks at a relief map of the world and decides to draw 
> his own boundaries, Pirsig looks at common experience and divides it up in 
> an uncommon way, making Quality the "moral superpower" and classifying 
> subjective and objective elements as its subordinate levels.

You portray Pirsig's perspective as arbitrary. Nothing could be farther from
the truth.

> Having 
> redefined everything to suit his moralistic  rationale, he sits back and 
> says, "See--this is what reality really is.  Isn't morality wonderful?"  How 
> stupid of us ignoramuses not to see that we were looking at morality all the 
> time!
 
He doesn't say that at all. A totally unsupported, unfair characterization.
I'm surprised, Ham, that you attempt to belittle a fellow philosopher because
you happen to disagree with him. 

Best regards,
Platt



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/