Krimel and Group
On 20 Dec. you cited yours truly:
> [Bo]
> There are surely more S/O derivatives, Mind/body, mental/
> corporeal, abstract/concrete and the said symbol/what's
> symbolized are obvious.
and went on to say:
> [Krimel]
> I would say the Greek contribution was more along the
> abstract/concrete continuum. They appreciated the contribution of
> mathematical idealization so much that it led them to devalue the
> actual messy world of the concrete.
I trust ZAMM to give a fairly correct summary of the evolution of
what the MOQ calls SOM. For something of great importance
happened around this time, almost all agree on that.
Abstract/concrete is definitely one S/O offshoot, I have no idea
when that term emerged, but I know that subjective/objective is
from Medieval times. None of our S/Os were known to the
Greeks.
> [Bo]
> One more subtle is nurture/nature but as
> we know, these two never agrees on who determines mankind, so
> it's typical S/O.
> [Krimel]
> Nature sets the range of possibility. Nurture provides that stage.
Excuse me for laughing, but how many times has academy
agreed on this and variations, but each time the quarrel starts
anew over what's the REAL determinant. Exactly as over if mind
is result of matter (brain) or if matter really is mind. This will - can
- never be settled, because the premises are fundamentally
wrong.
> [Bo]
> "Soul" was Greece's contribution to Judaism that
> constituted Christianity so soul/body is another dichotomy.
> [Krimel]
> Greek influence on Judaism at least insofar as it is expressed in the
> Jewish cannon is non-existence. The Jewish scriptures were all written
> prior to Alexander's spreading of Hellenism. The Jews heard the idea
> of a 'soul' from the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians but they did
> not seem to make much of it.
The Greeks did not contribute to Judaism but its encounter with
Judaism resulted in Christendom ... was what I meant to say
(give me a break). But I maintain that the "soul" came from the
Greeks. The Egyptians practiced the embalming just for the sake
of the body - along with a lot of artefacts - were to travel to
beyond, no soul. This characterized all - what to call it -
mythological era. The Vikings also buried kings with his whole
household.
> [Bo]
> SOM has had an enormous influence on Western philosophy by
> creating the problem (all western thinking are footnotes to Plato they
> say) and has coloured all "solutions".
> [Krimel]
> That bit of self serving hyperbola comes from the Platonist Whitehead.
> Neat guy and widely quoted but to be taken with a grain of salt.
Plato wasn't the start of SOM, but that even present day
philosophy is footnotes to the Greeks holds true. For a long
time European philosophy was footnotes to Moses (during
Medieval time) but that's another storey. Did you read the essay
that Anthony McWatt referred to? At least Caryl Johnstone says:
American literary and professional elites still continue to
churn out reams of sociological and “philosophological” (a
Pirsig word for something that is not exactly philosophy)
commentary that contain the same old eviscerated
Cartesian and post-Protestant presumptions which,
despite all their varying and even conflicting forms, have
basically nothing new to offer.
Descartes was a direct SOM heir. Post-Protestant is of course
post-religion and SOM.
IMO
Bo
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/
