Interesting thread DMB - I may eventually get my head around what specifically distinguishes radical empiricism from empiricism.
I think you start and end with a key point ... the "frustration" that there was / is "something wrong" with a static SOM view is not new, and recurrs in the history of philosophy. Thanks Ian On 8/28/07, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan said to Ron: > I think that's what the MOQ brings to the table: a way of ordering reality > that doesn't begin by separating subject from object but rather uniting them > under one umbrella. > > Ron replied: > I'm not arguing this intellectual assertion, I argue that subject object > distinction also lies in immediate experience and not just an intellection. > By your rationale, if one observes an object never experienced before, that > object can not exist. > > dmb says: > I understand your frustration with this idea. It defies common sense. The > notion that the world of things (objects) is already out there waiting for > us (subjects) to experience it is so thoroughly ingrained in our language > and culture that contradicting it seems insane or even (gasp) stupid. And I > realize that it seems absurd to say that a thing can't exist unless it is > first experienced, but that's actually what the MOQ says. The MOQ says that > experience brings "things" into existence. Instead of the usual view, it > says that "things" are given reality by virtue of the distinctions we > discover in experience. If memory serves Pirsig says something like, if a > thing has no value (negative or positive) then it is not distinquished from > anything else and so does not exist. We create the notion of external > objects because it works. It works cause we duck when sharp "objects" are > flying at us, for example. In that sense, nobody is suggesting we abandon > common sense distinctions in ordinary life. But this sort of naive realism > has limits and leads to all sorts of trouble. The metaphysical assumptions > of SOM are intimately tied up with our scientific and technological society. > In many ways it has worked all too well so that we find ourselves living in > a degraded enviroment, an artificial, machine-like world, alienation from > our lives and from ourselves - and quite alot of this has to do with the > over-emphasis on the so-called objective truths and realities and, at the > same time, a denegration of so-called subjective experience such as we might > enjoy in the arts or personal relations, etc. > > Ron asked: > ...whatever happened to radical empiricism. > > dmb says: > I'm predicting a big come-back. But seriously, if I lost track and failed to > answer don't take it personally. I'm just busy with other things. > > DMB posted Emerson quotes: > He says, "The one thing in the world, of value, is the active soul." The > sort of creative genius, he says, "is the sound estate of every man, In its > essence it is progressive. ...springing spontaneous from the mind's own > sense of good and fair." (Need we ask anyone, Phaedrus?) "In the right state > he is Man Thinking. In the degenerate state ...a mere thinker, or still > worse, the parrot of other men's thinking." (Yes, i see the irony in quoting > that.) Books, he says, "are for nothing but to inspire". "Undoubtedly there > is a right way of reading, so it be sternly subordinated. Man Thinking must > not be subdued by his instruments." > > dmb says to Ron: > The main distinction here, even though Emerson doesn't us the terms, is > between static and dynamic. Notice what Emerson says about this "active > soul"; that everybody has it, it is spontaneous, can't be found in books or > other instruments of the intellect. This spontaneous sense of what's good > and fair is our pre-intellectual experience, the primary empirical reality. > "You" know it is good to get off that "hot stove" and do so even before you > have time to think of the experience in terms of self and stove. (We don't > normally think of such a move as "moral" because its so "thoughtless", but > when we think of morality of a basic sense of what's good and bad instead of > just that set of cultural expectations then we can easily see how getting > off the stove was "good". Its certainly better than burning your ass, > breaking the stove or starting a fire. It was certainly NOT a good time to > settle in and read a book about asses or stoves or fires. And I think that > guys like Emerson and Pirsig are saying that we have to learn to trust our > spontaneous nature. Even in activities that seems to also require structure, > practice and precision - things like archery, motorcycling and sailing - we > ought to trust that dynamic mode of perception. This sort of thing is > legendary in the arts (including the martial arts) and writers are > especially good at talking about this kind of thing but golfers will tell > you too. Hell, Luke Skywalker showed everybody a version of this when he > shut off the computers and nailed the Deathstar with one perfect shot. I > know its corny, but everybody has that image already. > > Among other things, Radical Empiricism says this kind of experience ought > not be excluded from our account of reality. Such things are not dismissed > or denegraded for being "just" subjective. If I understand Emerson, he > thinks it is the most valuable thing in the world. And if I understand > Pirsig, this is what the mystics, zen monks and artist all seek to > cultivate. That's pretty big stuff. A metaphysics that's dumb and/or blind > to all that definately has some problems. So, its quite alright to duck when > shit is coming at you. That's not the problem. SOM works well enough to > split atoms and go to the moon. When it comes to handling that level of > reality, SOM really rocks. Its not that its wrong so much as it is limited. > It has a way of putting all the emphasis on those lower levels of reality > and/or reducing human things to those levels. > > I'm told the romantics were among the first to complain, starting after the > American and French revolutions, when it became apparent that the ideals of > the enlightenment and the scientific revolution weren't necessarily going to > lead to a rational utopia. In fact, the terms "subject-object metaphysics" > and well as "static" and "dynamic" theories of truth came up in a class on > 19th century philosophy. And we're just getting warmed up, talking about a > guy who died in 1805 (Schiller). James's Radical Empiricism was still a > hundred years in the future. (I'm told Emerson and Schiller both influence > James in a big way.) My point here is simply that SOM has many critics and > it seems that doubting it is a fairly normal thing for a philosopher or even > a philosophologist to do. > > Thanks. > dmb > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/
