From: "David M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:23:26 +0100
Hi DMB
Great post, spot on, these are good reasons to reject
Bodvar's suggestions, although they are suggestions worthy of
consideration, and finding the reaons why they should be rejected
improves our understanding of MOQ, so thanks to Bodvar too.
Looks to me that your understanding of where MOQ can be placed
in the tradition is vastly improving, glad to see that education is
putting extra meat on your already substantial views. I look
forward to seeing just how far you can advance with your
studies and writing. I also hope that with people like
Hildebrand looking past Rorty and Putnam and getting back
to Dewey and James the time is ripe in the US for some new
and fruitful thinking. Here's to hope. If you ever hit the wall,
try me. Have you come across Joseph Margolis by the way?
See wiki worth a quick look.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "david buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
> Ron Kulp said:
> I've been emersing myself in Bodvar's work on the SOL concept and I have
> to
> say I'm with him. ...To percieve and understand any part of reality is
to
> percieve it as subject and object. Even our sensual recognition is based
> in
> symbol comprehension. we are emersed in languge but also much deeper
than
> imagined, language is an out growth of comprehension, language
> communicates
> this understanding. I believe Subject Object perception is base
awareness
> for all living organisms, I believe instinct is built on it.
>
> dmb says:
> Above all, the thing that keeps me from going along with Bodvar on this
> idea
> is that it somehow puts the MOQ over and above all other intellectual
> systems, as if it were unique in offering an alternative to the
> assumptions
> of SOM. But now I'm pretty well convinced that Pirsig has plenty of
> company
> in the philosophical world. Most recently, I learned that rejecting SOM
is
> one of the central features of classical Pragmatism. I was afraid that
> William James was the only one, but apparently the desire to find
> alternatives to SOM was something they all had in common. Last semester
I
> discovered that European thinkers like Bergson, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger
> and
> others were working on alternatives. I'd guess that all the process
> philosophers reject SOM as well. Its not hard to see why a person would
> think that SOM is built right into us, but this is just the power of
> language and culture which gives us "common sense". And common sense is
> just
> the mythology that still works, that people still believe in without
> question. But we can trace the history of ideas and see that this view
was
> invented at a certain point in time. (We can't say it happened at 8:45am
> on
> a Tuesday, but you know what I mean.) In the case of SOM, many point
their
> fingers at Descrates or at the Brit Empiricists. Pirsig and Heidegger
take
> it way back to Aristotle and Plato. There are many way to trace its
> development but the point is simply that these assumptions are not
> inherent
> in the intellect. The origins and limits of that worldview have been
> widely
> explored with the intellect. Saying that intellect and SOM are the same
is
> like saying religion and christianity are the same or that science is
> identical to Newtonian physics. In each case, the equation denies the
fact
> that alternatives are already in circulation. These kinds of equations
> would
> unforgivably narrow the concepts of intellect, religion and science.
>
> Ron said:
> I think ...Bo then brings up the question shouldn't there be another
> category within the intellectual level perhaps a subject object
> intellectual
> and a Quality intellectual (for lack of any proper descriptive term) a
> transcendent intellectual level one in which the awareness of the
subject
> object perception is taken into account when intellectualizing.
>
> dmb says:
> Developmental psychologist would certainly agree that there are higher
> stages in cognitive function, that basic rationality is not the end of
the
> road when it comes to intellectual development. And it seems to me that
> one
> would have to achieved a certain level to even begin to analyze and
> compare
> metaphysical systems, but it seems to me that the difference between SOM
> and
> the MOQ can be seen most plainly in their content. I mean, the MOQ isn't
a
> deeper, more profound version of SOM. The kind of mind that can grapple
> with
> philosophical issues can grapple with Pirsig's ideas just as well. I'd
> certainly agree that there is a mystical element in the MOQ and that
> mysticism can't be fully appreciated through intellect alone (what can,
> really?), but even that is presented in a philosophical form. Besides,
> pragmatism is an option for those who get spooked by mysticism. Pirsig
is
> certainly one of them and they've been bashing SOM since the 1870s.
>
> Thanks.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> See what you're getting into.before you go there
>
http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
