On 11/16/08 11:50 AM, "MarshaV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:16 PM 11/16/2008, you wrote:
>> On Sunday 16 November 2008 12:14 AM Ham writes to Andre and Platt:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> [Ham]
>> Yes, but behavioral conditioning of attitudes, phobias, and the like seems
>> more allied to Eastern mysticism than neuroscience or Western philosophy.
>> Which brings me to Pirsig's dismissal of metaphysics on the ground that it
>> is "too mystical". Platt quoted this familiar passage from LILA:
>>
>> [Platt]
>> "The first are the philosophers of science, most particularly the group
>> known as logical positivists, who say that only the natural sciences can
>> legitimately investigate the nature of reality, and that metaphysics is
>> simply a collection of unprovable assertions that are unnecessary to the
>> scientific observation of reality. For a true understanding of reality,
>> metaphysics is too 'mystical.'"
>>
>> [Ham]
>> Actually that's a gross distortion of what classical metaphysics is -- all
>> the worse for a philosopher seeking to advance a Metaphysics of Quality.
>> Compare this description of metaphysics from answers.com:
>>
>> [answers.com]
>> "Branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate structure and constitution
>> of reality - i.e., of that which is real, insofar as it is real. The term,
>> which means literally 'what comes after physics,' was used to refer to the
>> treatise by Aristotle on what he himself called 'first philosophy.' In the
>> history of Western philosophy, metaphysics has been understood in various
>> ways: as an inquiry into what basic categories of things there are (e.g.,
>> the mental and the physical); as the study of reality, as opposed to
>> appearance; as the study of the world as a whole; and as a theory of first
>> principles."
>>
>> [Ham]
>> I ask you, what is "mystical" about this approach to understanding? Just
>> because metaphysics is not Science doesn't make it mystical. Nor is
>> metaphysics "anti-Science". Indeed, we got to Science along the path of
>> logic and intuitive reasoning laid out by Aristotle. This has been a sore
>> point with me since I started reading Pirsig. Platt's point that the MoQ
>> "says that reality is prior to conception and is therefore immediate,
>> intuitive, undeliberate and involuntary" is well taken. What Pirsig calls
>> "pre-intellectual experience" (but is really
>> value-sensibility) is not a trance state, not "altered consciousness", not
>> mystical contemplation. It is man's attempt to apply intellect and logic to
>> a fundamental understanding of reality -- in this instance, based on the
>> values that drive human behavior.
>>
>> Thanks for your analysis of the SOM formulation as related to the NLP
>> concept.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ham
>>
>>
>> Hi Ham, Platt, and all,
>>
>> [Joe]
>> Aristotle divided thought into various categories, one of them being
>> Metaphysics. answers.com..metaphysics has been understood in various
>> ways: as an inquiry into what basic categories of things there are (e.g.,
>> mental and physical); etc.
>>
>> [Joe]
>> IMO Pirsig eliminated the ³mental² category by substituting four levels of
>> evolution in the ³physical² category which are ³mystically² perceived.
>> ³Mystically² is an analogy for the way we perceive different levels of
>> existence. ³Conscious² is another analogy for ³mystically². I am conscious
>> in earth, water, air, fire, or inorganic, organic, social, intellectual
>> realities. Conscious is contrasted to Mechanical, not as ³mental to
>> physical² but as undefined (mystical) to defined knowledge.
>>
>> Aristotle's perception of the four transcendentals: thing (res), one (unum),
>> true (verum), good (bonum) was a mystical perception.
>>
>>
>> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings Joe,
>
> Isn't consciousness a mental state?
>
> Marsha
Hi Marsha and all,
IMO Consciousness/self-awareness signifies evolution to the social level. I
was thinking of mystical in the above post. Social knowledge is apprehended
mystically, and only later at the intellectual level is there awareness in
SOL.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 11/16/08 12:14 AM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but behavioral conditioning of attitudes, phobias, and the like seems
>>> more allied to Eastern mysticism than neuroscience or Western philosophy.
>>> Which brings me to Pirsig's dismissal of metaphysics on the ground that it
>>> is "too mystical". Platt quoted this familiar passage from LILA:
>>>
>>> "The first are the philosophers of science, most particularly the group
>>> known as logical positivists, who say that only the natural sciences can
>>> legitimately investigate the nature of reality, and that metaphysics is
>>> simply a collection of unprovable assertions that are unnecessary to the
>>> scientific observation of reality. For a true understanding of reality,
>>> metaphysics is too 'mystical.'"
>>>
>>> Actually that's a gross distortion of what classical metaphysics is -- all
>>> the worse for a philosopher seeking to advance a Metaphysics of Quality.
>>> Compare this description of metaphysics from answers.com:
>>>
>>> "Branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate structure and constitution
>>> of reality - i.e., of that which is real, insofar as it is real. The term,
>>> which means literally 'what comes after physics,' was used to refer to the
>>> treatise by Aristotle on what he himself called 'first philosophy.' In the
>>> history of Western philosophy, metaphysics has been understood in various
>>> ways: as an inquiry into what basic categories of things there are (e.g.,
>>> the mental and the physical); as the study of reality, as opposed to
>>> appearance; as the study of the world as a whole; and as a theory of first
>>> principles."
>>>
>>> I ask you, what is "mystical" about this approach to understanding? Just
>>> because metaphysics is not Science doesn't make it mystical. Nor is
>>> metaphysics "anti-Science". Indeed, we got to Science along the path of
>>> logic and intuitive reasoning laid out by Aristotle. This has been a sore
>>> point with me since I started reading Pirsig.
>>> Platt's point that the MoQ "says that reality is prior to conception and is
>>> therefore immediate, intuitive, undeliberate
>> and involuntary" is well taken.
>>> What Pirsig calls "pre-intellectual experience" (but is really
>>> value-sensibility) is not a trance state, not "altered consciousness", not
>>> mystical contemplation. It is man's attempt
>> to apply intellect and logic to
>>> a fundamental understanding of reality -- in this instance, based on the
>>> values that drive human behavior.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your analysis of the SOM formulation as related to the NLP
>>> concept.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> 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/
>
> .
> .
> The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in
> which each is a reflection of all the others in a
> fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
> .
> .
>
>
> 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/
