[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[X Acto]

> Ant comments:
>
> The logos and mythos are both intellectual static patterns.  In the MOQ of LILA, they are therefore both “subjective” in the ontological sense.  And it is this ontological sense of mind&  matter; subject&  object that Pirsig uses post-LILA (e.g. in the Copleston Annotations and the SODV paper) when talking about relating SOM to the MOQ.


Tuukka:
Why is logos subjective? Is there another reason than Pirsig saying so? 
If there isn't, you are now prioritizing LILA over ZAMM, as Pirsig also 
said other things. Logos is not subjective in any relevant way, except 
the Buddhist "relative" way, popularized on MD by Marsha. The truths of 
logos are interrelated to each other, and mean nothing outside the 
context of that network of interrelated truths. This already is the 
message of Quine's confirmation holism. But unlike the truths of mythos, 
the truths of logos have a verifiable meaning within that network, and 
hence, they are objective. Furthermore, no static truths have verifiable 
meanings outside their context, as they don't exist outside the context.
 
Ron:
Well, if you understand Quine, then you can understand why logos is contextually 
subjective in the same way as mythos because they both require a contextual
framework of meaning. You admitted this. The arguenet is over one contextual
framework as being "more" objective than another which doesent quite make sense
since you just established that the meaning of the term "objective" is relative
to the context of it's use. In effect you just stated that "objectivity" is essentially
a subjective term.
The idea that bridges all contexts is "the good" Pirsig uses the term Quality.
The good is a static truth that is understood in any context.
Then we can judge contextual frameworks like paintings in an art gallery.
 
Tuuka:
I understand if "subjectivity" is thought of as a box, in which we can 
put anything we want, we can just put logos there and leave it at that. 
But that would be like running over ZAMM with LILA because the task to 
make them resonate seemed difficult.

If physics is objective, and logos is not, what is the point of saying 
Aristotle was being objective, when he defined force as something that 
keeps bodies in motion, and that Galilei was also being objective, when 
he defined force as something that causes changes in velocity and 
acceleration, but is not a requirement for motion? Were both Aristotle 
and Galilei being objective, because they were using a scientific 
method? Were their scientific methods themselves subjective?
 
Ron:
Aristotle was after clarity in meaning. He was dealing with the problem
of relativism also. The good is what makes some things better than others
it makes some things truer than others. Subjectivity is more like a pair of glasses
one interprets experience through. Thats why he wrote the "meta-physics"
you should read it some time.
Aristotle understood that scientific observation was a subjective enterprise.
All explanation is. The focus was on clarity in meaning, does the explanation
accurately provide meaning to the observation, how well does it explain
observable phenomena? How successful are it's predictions?
Tuuka,I highly recommend doing the homework. Reasearch will
help out tremendosly with alot of your questions.
 
..