Dmb previously: James and Dewey are non-SOM philosophers and that's my main point. Their work is proof that there are non-SOM alternatives at the intellectual level.
Ron previously: The angle is that they are SOM philosophers, they were born and bred in western culture, they use English, a subject object case language to describe non-analytic alternatives. They project a paradigm outside Of the cultural normative thought structure, James and Dewey offer Radical inclusion to analytic empirical method. They contend that no Data is strictly objective and factual, It is all colored by cultural And personal bias. It is the realization that we can not trust ourselves to objectively Evaluate any data absolutely, we may however reduce error by applying A radical empiricism. It is a refinement of SOM methods, it is truer via James own convictions Of any new idea's test is the compatibility with former ideas. Recent Dmb quotes: "Nobody denies that SOM is part of the language or culture. As I've said many times, those distinctions are useful and appropriate most of the time." "The debate about SOM and the philosophical criticism of it is taking place within our culture. You and me and Pirsig and James all speak english and read philosophy books. The alternatives offered are also drawn from that same culture." Steve's Pirsig Quote to Gav: "There already is a metaphysics of quality. A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is into subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble is, it doesn't. What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box that sits above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he also saw a huge number of ways in which Quality can be divided. Subjects and objects are just one of the ways." (Lila) Ron says: Dave, as per the above statements we are on the same page, different Paragraphs perhaps but the same page non-the-less, here's the issue: Bo maintains by these statements that for all practical intent and purpose, SOM represents the intellectual level as per our culture. And as you Posit that Dewey James and Pirsig project an intellectual framework different From it. Now MoQ and SOM differ in the fact that SOM is embedded in the culture while MoQ is not, not yet anyway. Here lies the paradigm shift from speaking about the levels in general Evolutionary terms and speaking of them in culturally specific terms. Dave, I'm not an SOL salesman, I'm just trying to sort out the mess. I guess the main point is That SOM was not aware that it was an intellectual pattern and took It for reality itself the culture takes it as reality itself. MoQ realizes it is an intellectual pattern And includes this knowledge in it's body. It leaves the metaphysic open to the dynamic. This aspect alone sets it above all other intellectual patterns. Now before you go pointing to Tao and Hinduism, I must point out that MoQ retains scientific method and a host of other SOM qualities that have bore the fruit of our modern world. as far as I'm aware historically this is something of a first for humanity and the dawning of a new age of possibility. dmb says: Please explain what topos theory says and how it is related to radical empiricist method? Ron: This is where it all ties together, MoQ and scientific method. I don't have the time at the moment to explain all the technical aspects But I can give you a rough synopsis. Topos theory is a mixture of Whiteheads principle of relativity and James Radical empiricism. It accounts for all data in a given mathematic system a rather complex one. It's something along the lines of weather prediction models where it also Relies on interrelatedness, nothing is isolated, well, to a point. What it does is set up a mathematical model based in value sets which Compose a loose system which in turn is a part of a collection of Systems which discreetly interrelate. In this collection of interrelated Systems a small virtually un noticeable variable can geometrically Accumulate To effect the collection or a portion of it. These systems as Pirsig proposes in his levels, interrelate but do Not resemble each other they all work on their own system but as Pirsig also proposes, they all require each other to exist. For example a team could set up an eco model of the Brazilian rain forest Given all we know about its specific parts, weather, deforestation, Population, habitat, climate ect. And introduce any variable to then predict Outcomes that scientists would never dream of hypothesizing, effects so minute as to build to huge unforeseen impact. _________________________________________________________________ Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012 008 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/
