[MD] Tit's

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello David M.

>From your post of 6 Aug.

> That sounds about right. But what is this idea/concept of objectivity.
> How should MOQ understand SOM? ..(snip)

Matter or substance is just one aspect of SOM. ZAMM traces its 
origin to the Greek thinkers' search for something more absolute 
than the gods, and this original dichotomy of what is ABSOLUTE 
(objective) and what is NOT ABSOLUTE (subjective) has gone 
through many phases. Socrates' SOM was Truth/Appearance, 
Plato's was Ideas/Appearance. With Aristotles it had become 
Substance/Form and here Pirsig start to rail against substance as 
if "objectivity" is MOQ's only antagonist. The greatest pitfall is to 
identify the MOQ with subjectivism. It's the subject/object 
aggregate which is pitted against MOQ's DQ/SQ aggregate.

    What is essential to understand at this point is that until 
    now there was no such thing as mind and matter, subject 
    and object, form and substance. Those divisions are just 
    dialectical inventions that came later. The modern mind 
    sometimes tends to balk at the thought of these 
    dichotomies being inventions and says, ``Well, the 
    divisions were there for the Greeks to discover,'' and you 
    have to say, ``Where were they? Point to them!'' And the 
    modern mind gets a little confused and wonders what this 
    is all about anyway, and still believes the divisions were 
    there.  

DM ctd:
> We experience certain qualities and we put them together in a pattern
> we name as a 'wall'. What is the status of this wall? When we turn our
> back on this wall and cease to experience it does it still exist? We
> can turn back to check and find that the experience returns. Is
> objectivity the idea that there is something that exists between
> experiences that give continuity to these experiences? What Krim & Kant
> calls TiTs..... (snip)

People of old (pre SOM or pre-intellect IMO) certainly had no 
illusion about walls disappearing while turning their back, but their 
walls weren't  INERT, they obeyed magical forces. Blowing of 
horns made them fall, beating on rocks made water come 
out,."manna" descended and seas opened ...and so on inside the 
Jew Myth.     

The Thing In Itself" is a recent offspring of SOM, the empiricist 
(Berkeley, Hume) "discovered" that senses don't pick up any 
colors, smells, sights or sounds, these are produced by the senses 
themselves. Krimel gave a speech a few posts ago as if these 
things are news, while it is what lead to Kant's conclusion that 
most of experience is subjective (a priori) with an ineffable 
objective rest "out there" (the Tits)  And Kant's  have since been 
SOM's last word. The fact that things exist independent on point of 
view (or turning our backs) is due to experience partly/mostly being 
inside our mind ...according to Kant (a priori=before experience).

    Kant says there are aspects of reality which are not 
    supplied immediately by the senses. These he calls a 
    priori. An example of a priori knowledge is ``time.'' You 
    don't see time. Neither do you hear it, smell it, taste it or 
    touch it. It isn't present in the sense data as they are 
    received. Time is what Kant calls an ``intuition,'' which the 
    mind must supply as it receives the sense data (ZAMM)  

> Are TiTs the 'possibility' not always realised of certain experiences
> occuring? Is this what MOQ is suiggesting? 

This sentence I've read several times without understanding. 
Please elaborate.

Bo 
  .