Ron: "I think therefore I am" in proper context, I believe introduces the abstract concept of self. Cultural derrivation being a given in this matter. Descartes as Aristotle, provides a "toe hold" as Krimel says, for certainty within a context, a cultural one. Since most of us agree about absolute universal truth especially both of you gentleman, I think the discussion may evolve from there.
[Krimel] Yeah, actually in the Discourse on Method Descartes gets around to saying this: "when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search." He adds a bit later. "I thence concluded that I was a substance whose whole essence or nature consists only in thinking, and which, that it may exist, has need of no place, nor is dependent on any material thing; so that " I," that is to say, the mind by which I am what I am, is wholly distinct from the body, and is even more easily known than the latter, and is such, that although the latter were not, it would still continue to be all that it is." This should make him near and dear the hearts of Dave and idealists. He is claiming that mental "substance" has a more certain status that physical substance. He was actually searching for a way to prove the existence of God and the Soul. I am not sure where Aristotle would find a toehold on truth but I accept Descartes basic idea here, that having thoughts implies existence. Beyond that we fade back into uncertainty, argument and dispute. His toehold offers very little in the way of traction. His dualistic conclusions about mental and physical substance are what I take to be the Cartesian problem, the entrenchment of SOM. But that SOM is not found in the cogito nor do I think that the cogito relies on 17th century culture other than as a matter of coincidence. I certainly do not think that stating that Descartes is a product of 17th century culture refutes the basic claim of the cogito, anymore than I think Kant is refuted by calling him ugly. The real point is that the cogito is NOT based on SOM assumption; in fact it is the result of doubting and discarding all assumptions and looking straight at what cannot be doubted. So far other than muttering about SOM assumptions I have heard no cause to doubt the original statement. Ron: I think what must be focused on and addressed is the nature of the concepts we form with the term "external reality" quite certain in our human expereince we expereince what we commonly know as external stimuli. Again Context is key in this discussion. [Krimel] I actually am somewhat sympathetic to the 'eastern' spin on this. What I experience is the stimulation and response of my nervous system. That's it. I have no direct experience of anything outside of my nervous system. What I make of this, the order I see in the world, the static patterns are of my own making. When "I" look at anything in "my" visual field "I" make sense of it. "I" see the patterns and impose the order and in this sense it seems very right to conclude that "I and that." It is me and of my own making. But I think it is utter rubbish to conclude from this that my senses and the sense I make of them is all there is. "I" am a process and part of that process is interaction with an external other. I can and do question the nature of that other. Whether it is material "substance" (materialism) or mental "substance" (idealism) or neither becomes in some sense a matter of metaphysical speculation. But that speculation must eventually account for what is observed and experienced. When I bang my thumb with a hammer certain things have to be accounted for regardless of metaphysics. I experience pain. Is it caused by the interaction of a material hammer impacting a material thumb or is it the idea of a hammer in relation to the idea of thumb? Unless the distinction has consequences that will matter whenever hammer contacts thumb in the future, then any discussion of the difference between materialism and idealism is just hot air. Ron: Dave is saying that there is a harmony, a running unity of pluralality, the "I" in "I think therfore I am". [Krimel] I think the problem is that Dave, like Ham and Bo favor the Greek style of deductive reasoning. They start with general principles and reason towards specifics. They think that their "definitions" have some privileged status and that it is the world's duty to conform to them. I favor the inductive style which says to go out and look at things and see what general principles, patterns if you will, can be found. There are of course advantages and disadvantage to either style but I think what Dave and especially Ham illustrate is that focus on "ideals" breeds dissatisfaction with the "real." When compared to the messiness of everyday life, the world of ideas seems pure pristine, perfect and divine. The "world" by contrast seems dirty, messy and evil. [Ron] Conclusivly I agree with dave that solopsism does not enter the hunt on Pirsigs propositions. Solopsism, I believe centers around the notion that the subjectice, Parmenindian ,Platonic "soul" or self generates all expereince. This is not so to Pirsigs MoQ. [Krimel] My point was that Dave says, "In the MOQ there is no "out there". The idea of an independent external reality is just that, an idea." That sounds like solipsism to me; Parmenidian, Platonic, self generating solipsism. To which his response was just an exercise in bumper sticker sloganeering. 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/
