Hi Krimel Case
Sun. March 9 you spoke:
> Your condescension is noted but since it is clear you really have no idea
> what Krimel thinks I'll let it slide. In Lila Pirsig really does invent
> SOM as his personal straw man. I do not find in his discussions of it in
> Lila any clear indication of what he means by either subject or object so
> in this vacuum we are each free to pursue them as we see fit. But in my
> view his clearest statement of the problem is in ZMM. In talking about
> Kant and Hume he says among other things:
I only know what Krimel writes. SOM as part of the MOQ I have always
admitted to. Regarding (most of) LILA as unclear on subjects and
objects I agree about. Only the SOL interpretation makes that case
clear.
ZAMM:
"If all our knowledge comes from sensory data, what exactly is
this
substance which is supposed to give off the sensory data
itself? If you
try to imagine what this substance is, apart from what is
sensed, you'll
find yourself thinking about nothing whatsoever."
> Sense data is subjective that is, internal to the individual. Objects are
> things in themselves (TiTs) about which knowledge is limited.
But at this stage Phaedrus takes the SOM for granted and struggles
with its notion of an objective world 'out there' that we are supposed to
perceive through our senses. And uses the well-known empiricism
argument to show that if qualities are removed (and the argument is
valid) what's left recedes into quasi-existence.
> Part of your confusion is obvious when you say, "To the materialist
> intellect (mind) assess the external world objectively..." I would say
> instead that the objective world is accessed subjectively.
> Furthermore to speak of subjects, plural, is to miss the point entirely.
> There is only one subject in my world and it is me. In your world it is
> you but in my world you are an object as I am an object in yours. (I admit
> that I just glossed over the issue of solipsism but intentionally so.)
> I would add that objectivity is not really a matter of TiTs but of what
> multiple subjects agree upon. Objectivity is in fact intersubjectivity and
> that is what I always mean by the term.
I'm not really interested in learning how many boxes within boxes SOM
produces. The thing is that the S/O (mind/matter) divide is immensely
valuable and have brought us modernity. The fact that it is untenable
philosophically is what the Quality Metaphysics sets right by relegating
it the role of its highest static level while postulating that existence's
real divide is the Dynamic/Static one. Get it?
> I am currently reading Michael Tomasello's book on the cultural origins of
> human cognition. In it he tries to make the case that the only real
> difference between humans and other primates is our ability to see other
> members of our species as intentional agents like ourselves. In other
> words he claims we are biologically equipped to evade solipsism. I am not
> entirely convinced but it is an interesting point.
Ok, ok, my library is also full of books on the many twists to the S/O
divide (as philosophically absolute) can be done before breakfast. Yet
no-one can deny the immense progress it has brought to mankind. All
cultures who (in moq-speak) refuses to enter the 4th. level stagnate it
seems.
> Certainly our ability to adopt multiple points of view is central to being
> the creatures that we are. It allows us to view others as subjects and to
> conceive of ourselves as objects.
Yes, this twist to the S/O is surely as valid as any other, my original
variety was just how the "man in the street" superficially perceives
SOM without knowing any SOM.
> If you persist in making much ado about "intellect" without bothering to
> look at the vast literature that arises from the direct study of it, your
> "ado" willing continue to be about nothing.
I'm in the strange situation of being bashed from those who allegedly
adheres to the MOQ and the MOQ-rejecters alike - something that
convinces me that I am on the right track. Your "attack" is easiest to
fend off because I can use the SOL interpretation (the 4th. level =the
S/O divide). The other party - now dwindled down to SA and poor
Marsha who hardly knows what's at stake, is more difficult to deal with
because the said level is the very issue.
My condescension is hard to avoid because I can't well accept your
anti-MOQ premises when discussing the MOQ. But you take it most
magnanimous and I thank you for that.
See you.
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/
