Krimel and Steve
17 Dec. Steve cited Krimel's from 16 Dec.
> > I think you have pegged an important issue here...
> > With regard to subjective/objective knowledge I agree with you as
> > far as you have taken it. I would add that there really is only
> > subjective knowledge. I only know what I know. I will only ever
> > know whatever it is I wind up knowing. There is only one subject, at
> > least in my world. Objective knowledge is knowledge that you and I
> > can agree upon or at least agree to disagree about. I like to think
> > of it as intersubjective knowledge and there the dualism is swept
> > away. The subject/object distinction is really little more than a
> > matter of linguistic convenience.
Of course, from SOM's premises the "all is subjective" (not just
knowledge) sounds watertight and shockproof. On the other hand
whether the "material world" REALLY is mind makes no
difference, the two are bound to each other. This goes for the
other pole, the "mind just a fall-out of matter". Mind may just be
mind, but never the less where everything is realized. The S/O
screw has turned for 3 thousand years and churned out ever
more complicated somish patterns. Its being a linguistic
convenience is a most sophisticated one.
Steve:
> I think what you are saying is consistent with Pirsig:
"What guarantees the objectivity of the world in which we live is that
this world is common to us with other thinking beings. Through the
communications that we have with other men we receive from them
ready-made harmonious reasonings. We know that these reasonings do not
come from us and at the same time we recognize in them, because of
their harmony, the work of reasonable beings like ourselves. And as
these reasonings appear to fit the world of our sensations, we think
we may infer that these reasonable beings have seen the same thing as
we; thus it is that we know we haven't been dreaming. It is this
harmony, this quality if you will, that is the sole basis for the only
reality we can ever know." [ZMM p.268]
(I like to keep Pirsig's words apart)
Here objectivity=reality: "What guarantees the reality of the world
... etc." which shows that Phaedrus of ZAMM started from SOM.
But if we from the MOQ cast our view back to the pre-SOM (IMO
pre-intellect age, people hardly had any problems if the world was
objective and not a creation of their minds, this was not invented
yet. Existence included a host of forces - gods, goddesses, half-
and semi-half immortals - but even if invisible they were not
subjective in a SOM sense. OK, no, further comments, the above
is certainly SOM
Bo
>
>
> Regards,
> Steve
> 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/
