Krimel said to dmb: So you do deny the existence of an external world and you believe the MoQ is dualistic? Just trying to clarify.
dmb says: The MOQ's dualism is a distinction between Dynamic Quality and static quality. It says DQ is the primary empirical reality, a phenomenal reality. The "external world" denied by this would be Kant's things in themselves, the objective reality, material reality or whatever one wishes to call the supposed cause of the phenomena. In other words, the MOQ does not deny the experience from which we derive ideas about the external world, it simply denies that the external world is anything more than an idea. Think of it like this. Kant's categories of the mind were thought to be what gives shape to the things in themselves, the filter through which experience was interpreted. You could sayt that since the linguistic turn these categories have been replaced by language. This is what shapes our understanding, rather than some innate feature of the mind. Krimel said: The Dali Lama sent monks for testing at a neuroscience lab at the University of Wisconsin and delivered an address to the 2006 annual meeting of the Society for Neurosciences. ...The Transcendental Meditation folks have sponsored and promoted research for. But the Dalai Lama and the Maharishi are too reductionist for you to dirty your hands with? dmb says: Yea, I know. David Lynch is convinced that transcendental meditation has huge benefits for creativity as well as mental health. I have a four and a half hour program on the spiritual and scientific explorations of human experience from Stanford. His holiness, the Dalai Lama is the star of this program. John Horgan's book, "rational mysticism" discusses the scientific investigations into this as well. What makes you think that I don't know about this stuff? I live in this world too. See, I keep telling you that the data, the scientific facts are not in dispute. It is inherently philosophical to compare SOM with the MOQ. Talking about the status of the external world will not be helped by making reference to this facts. Roughly speaking, I'm talking metaphysics and you keep responding with physics. You think you're talking over my head but its more like you don't even understand what the topic is. As consequence, we're just talking past each other. Krimel said: Dream studies have been neglected? The first president of the APA, G. Stanley Hall wrote a book on dreams so did Freud, Jung and dozens of other Psychologists. There are sleep laboratories the world over studying the physiology of sleeping and dreaming. ...There is even a rock band named R.E.M. you might remember their hit, "Losin' My Religion". An acronym derived from the scientific study of the dream state has become part of the modern mythos. dmb says: If I had said there were no dream studies, you would have a good point. But I didn't so you don't. In fact, the head of the religious studies department at my school is a Jungian. I'll be taking the psychology of religion from her starting a week from today. I studied some Freud and such for another class a year ago. And of course my interest in mythology (Joe Campbell is a Jungian of sorts) is related to dreams as well. I'm currently reading a thing called "the Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Civilization". Its all about the impact of madness, hallucinations, prophecies and dreams in the ancient world and the ways in which this feature of our culture has been air-brushed out of the picture. Likewise, Pirsig says we have a blindspot here. That's what I mean by neglect, not total ignorance. By the way, I've seen REM in concert and have loved them for about 25 years. Even my 8 year old son likes that band. Again, I know this stuff cause I live in this world too. Its sa fe to assume that I do not live in a cave or under a rug. Krimel said: ...I would suggest that whatever your plan for more inclusive science "should" be might proceed a bit better if you actually knew what was going on. dmb says: Your continued efforts to discuss metaphysics by citing scientific studies can only be the result in a profound misconception as to the topic under discussion. Again, the data is not in dispute. The MOQ does nothing to alter the raw data. Its about the assumptions behind that data and the conclusions drawn from it. Its not like I have my head in the sand, you know. Its not like I'm hiding from the facts. In fact, I'm already signed up to study psychology and the social sciences this semester. The chairman of the grad school was a psychotherapist until she found it lacking and became a philosopher instead. I studied Freud, Piaget, and Lacan (among others) with her. She has said very flattering things (to other students) about the term paper I wrote for her class. It served as a writing sample in my application package too. My point? People who are in a much better position to judge what I'm saying think I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. And based on the case you've been making, I'd say that YOU have no idea what's going on and think you're subscribing to a rather naive sort of scientism. Again, science is one thing and the philosophy of science is another. You'll never keep up unless and until you switch to the actual topic. _________________________________________________________________ Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us 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/
