DMB, Steve, all --
Concerning a synopsis of my philosophy, dmb said (in part): > I think this represents a substantial conflict with the MOQ. > Ham's insistence on the importance of the "observing subject", > the "cognizant subject", the "body of this subject", consciousness, > "the individual's intellect" etc. looks exactly like SOM to me. > It amounts to a re-assertion of the Cartesian self, which is > described in Lila as a ridiculous fiction. For James, it is one > of the most troublesome fictions in all of philosophy. > For the Pragmatists in general it is a reified abstraction, > an idea that mistakes itself for an existential reality. > It's a hard idea to get used to. It scares people. > And if a guy's philosophy is centered around it, then it's > even harder. I don't know that I could explain it any better > than Steve did, but I'd emphasize the fact that switching from > SOM to the MOQ will necessarily involve a fairly serious > re-conceptualization of the self. ...It is both emotionally > and conceptually difficult to let it go or trade it in. Thanks for giving me the benefit of your critique, David. I think you're wrong about James, but probably right about pragmatists (and nihilists) in general. In any case, Essentialism is my philosophic platform. I can assure you that I do not intend to "let it go" or "trade it in" by switching to a belief system that is devoid of selfness. --Ham 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/
