Hi Ian I'd suggest standard empirism assumes SOM and therefore that you need an epistemology to answer the skeptic.
Radical empiricism says kick out the SOM concepts, the only reality is experience there is no world beyond experience that we are trying to make contact with. There is no special set of experiences that are more certain and objective than others.What we experience is real, it is all real. What we might call an illusion is real, we see it, but it might not be something we can kick, which is just another real experience. David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic 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/ 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/
