[MD] The SOL-ution

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Marsha V stated January 18th:

>Am I correct to state that before  Rm.'s 'Reality=Quality', the
>prominent Western worldview was  'Reality=Subjects&Objects'?

Or maybe it was just "objects" ?   ;-)

Best wishes,

Anthony

Mark: Hello Marsha and Anthony,
I think Marsha is correct when she states the prominent Western  worldview 
has been to equate Reality with Subjects and  Objects.
Objects require Subjective experience on this view, which leads into the  
black hole of idealistic solipsism. (Reality is all Ideas.)
 
The notion that reality is all objective (Objectivism) is suggestive of  the 
severe realism of Aristotelian rationalists such as Ayan Rand  and has little 
support in the Western tradition.
It is interesting to note the asymmetry here: Objectivism is hard to  sustain 
while SoM leads to Idealism. This process happened in the Eastern  Yogachara 
school, which was attacked by Nargajuna.
Now Pirsig is charged with the same thing: 'Why isn't the moq  idealism'?
The way out is to be very careful how you view Subjects and Objects within  
the moq.
My own view, which is not that of Pirsig, is to drop them altogether.  That's 
why i titled my 2005 Liverpool conference paper, 'There are no Objects in  
this room.'
I do not claim to be able to sustain this position, but it seems to me the  
alternative of dissolving S/O into a dual subset of the four ontological static 
 quality levels is unhelpful. I say unhelpful because this sets up a  
correspondence between them which may reintroduce SoM.
 

However, Robert Pirsig is not the first to suggest reality is neither  
Subject and Object.
(I do not wish to align Pirsig with either the Western or Eastern  traditions 
myself, but Marsha does not exclude this position in  the phrasing of her 
suggestion.)
Therefore, Marsha is also correct when she emphasises, 'the prominent  
Western worldview' thus recognising alternatives. (Here Marsha does not imply  
Pirsig is confined to the Western tradition.)
 
Love,
Mark