KrimelCase and DMB
16 Jan.u wrote:
> Actually I don't know your position and frankly I don't see how a
> single thing you said makes any contact with what I said. A sense of
> causation is not one bit limited to the scientific domain. Perhaps you
> just had something random to said and decided to attach it to my post.
> Thanks a lot.
You hinted to having read my post to David Swift so I drew the
conclusion, but never mind. My writings not making contact may
result from my MOQ premises and your semi-SOM.
"A sense of causation not limited to the scientific domain". Listen.
When ancient (social-level) people saw some "action" it was
always caused by (what we call) magical forces. Then the arrival
of the intellectual level and its science where the cause of any
action is mechanist. Because intellect is academy (the Church of
Reason) academical philosophers began speculating about this
newfangled explanation ...ref. Kant. ("new" in an extended sense,
already the Greeks ...etc)
On the levels anthropomorphized:
> It is only difficult if you are locked into that mode of thinking
> about things. To the extent that I read you posts it seems to me that
> in is not just a manner of speak but a manner of speaking that
> reflects that actual way you see this. For you the levels have some
> kind of independent existence filled with desires, motives and
> purposes. This is a bad way of thinking and a bad way of talking.
Again, I don't see emotions or awareness in connection with the
levels, but its next to impossible to avoid such allusions. However I
do claim that emotions entered with the social level - as its
"expression" - but that's another discussion
> But you know my position on this. The levels are a secondary aspect of
> the MoQ and whatever explanatory power they might have is squandered
> because no one agrees on where to divide the levels or having agreed
> on a dividing line can agree and what falls under what level.
IMO, the levels are not secondary, the MOQ is the Dynamic/Static
dualism, without the static no dynamic. Yes, there has been much
discussion about the levels, but it stemmed from the impossible
4th level that (parts of) LILA suggested, once the S/O
interpretation is established the rest - meaning the social, the
inorg. and bio. is plain - is settled.
> In your previous post to David you mention Kant. Where in either book
> does Pirsig dismiss Kant's argument? Please anyone can answer the
> question.
I see that DMB delivered an input here where he says:
> dmb says:Kant is discussed in ZAMM, starting in chapter 11. It's worth
> pointing out that he says that this discussion is important for
> understanding what Phaedrus thought and that Kant has to be rejected
> to the extent that he was working within SOM. Or, if you prefer, his
> discussion is important for understanding Pirsig's attack on the
> metaphysics of substance and helps to explain why there are no Kantian
> things-in-themselves in the MOQ. And basically, these days, Kant's
> categories of the mind have been replaced by language. Things like
> time and space are not considered to be inherent categories of the
> human mind so much as the thought categories handed down by the
> culture.
With which I generally agree with a couple of re(d)marks.
SOM is not only a "metaphysics of substance" but as much one of
"mind" thus the Kantian things-for-us are also abolished.
About time, space, causation no longer belonging to the human
mind, but removed to language/culture. It makes no difference, in
SOM both are subjective.
------------------
Back to ZAMM's on Kant, just one passage to highlight a point (my
caps)
Kant's metaphysics thrilled Phædrus at first, but later it
dragged and he didn't know exactly why. He thought about
it and decided that maybe it was the Oriental experience.
HE HAD THE FEELING OF ESCAPE FROM A PRISON
OF INTELLECT AND NOW THIS WAS JUST MORE OF
THE PRISON AGAIN.
This is terribly important for the SOL interpretation. Phaedrus sees
Kant as a SOMist (albeit a subjectivist) and P. sees SOM as
INTELLECT and - finally - he sees the MOQ an escape from
intellect. Ergo the MOQ is no intellectual pattern, but the very
metaphysics that strips SOM of its 'M' and relegates it a place
under its owm 'M' (as its 4th. level).
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/
