[MD] To Pirsig and all: Why are sociality and intellectuality strictly subjective?

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

Thank you for your replies,



Dmb,

Pirsig writes that subjects are social and intellectual whereas  
objects are inorganic and biological. You propose that he intends this  
as a helpful simplification.

"Thermal expansion" is another helpful simplification. Usually bodies  
expand upon being heated and contract when they cool down. But water  
expands when it freezes because the shape of the water molecule  
changes according to temperature. So there is an exception to the rule  
of thermal expansion, which is why the rule is a mere simplification.

I do see the point in making helpful simplifications about thermal  
expansion or about subjects being social and intellectual and objects  
being inorganic and biological. But what is the real deal about  
subjects and objects?



David H,

How does your message pertain to this issue?



Dan,

You write:

"Let's begin by stating the BDI is an intellectual instrument designed
to measure a patient's level of depression. That level of depression
is gauged by the patient's subjective feelings which cannot otherwise
be objectively quantified in ways meaningful for treatment. The cause
of that depression might indeed be biological, in which case certain
chemical imbalances might be measurable and treated once the diagnosis
of depression is established through use of the BDI. But the feelings
of being depressed are not something that can be measured by any
scientific instrument. Those feelings might be inferred through the
patient's behavior, but they cannot be seen."

However, social and intellectual patterns can be detected by  
scientific instruments. How, then, is the feeling of being depressed  
subjective and thus invisible to instruments, if it is also subjective  
and thus social or intellectual and thus visible to instruments? This  
is the contradiction.

"If we state scientific truth is objective, we are basically saying it
is immutable. Rigid. Fixed for all time. Instead, the MOQ sees truth
as high quality intellectual value patterns."

While the axioms of science do not require objective justification,  
the theorems of science do. The scientific study I posted is obviously  
not a declaration of a scientific axiom but a presentation of a  
scientific theorem. This means it is intended to be falsifiable, and  
this is what makes it objective. Perhaps I should've written that  
"scientific studies are objective" instead of "scientific truth is  
objective".

"If you stop and consider the case for science carefully, you will be
forced into the conclusion that all of science is subjective. That is,
science is based upon intellectual value patterns that describe
reality as accurately as possible and yet which necessarily change as
our perception of reality changes."

I already addressed this in my previous paragraph.

>> So, what does it mean that social and intellectual values are subjective
instead of objective?
> Dan:
> I take it to mean social and intellectual patterns are non-physical.
They exist in the mind.

But how can social and intellectual patterns be detected by  
instruments if they're subjective and subjective things are invisible  
to instruments?

"Dan:
In the MOQ, social and intellectual patterns are considered
subjective, not objective. As far as an overlap, if you remember,
Robert Pirsig has something to say about this in his letter to Paul
Turner:

"When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much clarity
can be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower levels. Just as
every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic
patterns are biological; and just as every social level is also
biological, although not all biological patterns are social; so every
intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns are
intellectual. Handshaking, ballroom dancing, raising one's right hand
to take an oath, tipping one's hat to the ladies, saying "Gesundheit
!" after a sneeze-there are trillions of social customs that have no
intellectual component. Intellectuality occurs when these customs as
well as biological and inorganic patterns are designated with a sign
that stands for them and these signs are manipulated independently of
the patterns they stand for. "Intellect" can then be defined very
loosely as the level of independently manipulable signs. Grammar,
logic and mathematics can be described as the rules of this sign
manipulation." [Robert Pirsig to Paul Turner]"

So the subjective emerges from the objective. Something that is  
subjective is therefore necessarily objective, but something that is  
objective is not necessarily subjective. You did write that "In the  
MOQ, social and intellectual patterns are considered subjective, not  
objective." but it appears that you should've written: "In the MOQ, it  
is more accurate to call social and intellectual patterns subjective  
than to call them objective." Do you agree?

Furthermore, you wrote:

"If we state scientific truth is objective, we are basically saying it
is immutable. Rigid. Fixed for all time. Instead, the MOQ sees truth
as high quality intellectual value patterns."

According to the Pirsig quote you presented, scientific truth is  
subjective, but the subjective emerges from the objective, so  
everything subjective is also objective. Hence, scientific truth is  
objective, although it is also subjective.

Regards,
Tuk