Hi DMB Yeah, well what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I think one of the best books on Hegel is Charles Taylor's Hegel by the way. Looking forward to some posts from you on pragmatism.
Regards David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "david buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic > Thanks Dave. > > It might interest you to know classes haven't even begun but, after having > read only the introductions to the books assigned for Hildebrand's class > on > pragmatism, I can already see that the MOQ fits into classical American > philosophy, that it fits very neatly into mainstream Pragmatism. I was > surprized to learn that radical empiricism, which I thought was unique to > James and seperate from pragmatism, is a central plank in classical > pragmatism, a defining feature shared more or less by all the big hitters; > Dewey, Peirce, Santyana, Mead and the rest. This fact alone has me totally > thrilled. But its all a match. Click, click, click. Everything is going to > snap into place, no instructions required. I'm totally psyched. You and > the > gang will be reading all about it here, whether you like it or not. And > David Hildebrand is a very righteous dude. Lucky, lucky me. Seriously. > > I'm also signed up for a class on 19th century European philosophy and > that > means Hegel. Not only was pragmatism born, at least in part, as a response > to the St. Louis Hegelians, I'll be looking for the story behind Pirsig's > comment about the MOQ's "Quality" NOT being some Hegalian absolute. I'd > like > to be able to say exactly what the differences are. > > But, I have to say, I'm not too sure you can help when I hit a wall, > especially on those occasions when you are the wall. I still have several > bumps on my head. Ouch. > > dmb > > > >>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/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/
