[MD] subject/object: no quality?

[david buchanan]

Ron Kulp said:
...Pirsig placed value (quality) before subject and object in the SODV paper 
and supported what Dan stated - that ideas actually do come before matter. I 
questioned how literal does he mean this? Is he saying that ideas create 
matter scientifically? If he does mean this, doesn't this concept then 
render ultimate reality as subjective in origin? ...

dmb says:
That's exactly the question I asked Paul Turner. (2 or 3 years ago) "Are we 
supposed to believe that reality pops into existence the moment we have the 
idea of it", I asked. (Or something like that.) As I understand it, the 
answer is definately "no". I don't think "literally" is the right word for 
it, but I'm pretty sure Pirsig means it. See, he's pointing out that 
"matter" itself is an idea rather than a pre-existing fact of the universe. 
And this is exactly what he's saying about subjects and objects; they're 
ideas not pre-existing facts of the universe. These are the assumptions of 
SOM and so Pirsig's counter-intuitive claim has to be understood WITHOUT 
those assumptions.

Gravity is usually understood as one of those pre-existing facts of the 
universe, a law of reality that has always operated regardless of whether of 
not anyone was aware of the fact. And so we naturally (SOM) think that it 
was discovered by Newton. No so, says Pirsig. Instead, he says, Newton 
invented gravity. I forget the source, probably Lila's Child, but there is 
an account of somebody trying to wrap their heads around the idea and asking 
him something like, "You mean before Issac Newton came along apples didn't 
obey the law of gravity". Pirsig replied, "No, they didn't. Apples just 
fell." See, nobody is saying that apples used to float around like 
cosmonauts or anything too weird. Its just about being careful when it comes 
to seeing the difference between our ideas about reality and reality as it 
is actually known in experience. And in this case he's saying that "matter" 
is a theory about experience. Its a pretty damn good interpretation for most 
purposes, but its not to be confused with the lived reality. Was there 
"matter" before the concept was invented? To answer in rhyme with Pirsig, 
no, stuff was just hard and heavy. And of course "hard" and "heavy" are 
ideas too, etc.. The world is built of analogies upon analogies going back 
too far back to see but always growing out of lived experience.

Solipsism designates being lost in one's own subjective reality and is 
something like the individualistic version of subjective idealism. In any 
case, the MOQ's alternative assumptions don't allow for such a charge simply 
because of the "subject's" new status as idea rather than fact.

Thanks
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Share your special parenting moments! 
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us