> [Krimel] > It is pretty obvious that Self is not a primary metaphysical concept.
[John Aghast] Huh? You can't have a metaphysic without a self to make one. What are you talking about? [Krimel] It is my understanding that metaphysics is about what is required of any physics. It looks at what is required to have a world with or without entities to experience it. I think Static/Dynamic or Yin/Yang foot the bill. > [Krimel] > Selves, whatever they are or however we conceive of them can only be seen > as > metaphysical constructs from a purely phenomenological or self centered > point of view. [John] Sounds like selves are primary metaphysical concepts then. I mean, for most people anyway. [Krimel] I just don't think we need metaphysics to account for this. So I guess I am not one of those people. > [Krimel] > But I think one of the key flaws in > Pirsig's version of SOM is to focus on this particular version of the > Mind/Body problem. [John] Yeah? I never quite got the mind body problem myself. What problem? I gotta body, I don't mind. [Krimel] My point is that at least the mind/body version refers to two alleged kinds of substance. Subject/Object is just a matter of point of view. > [Krimel] > or whether physical substance (extension) is metaphysically > different from mental substance (non-extension). There are many ways to > talk about a self that do not appeal to any particular metaphysical > assumptions at all. [John] Well if I was john the arguer instead of john the dialoguer, I'd probably challenge you to name one. But I'm wondering if maybe there is some confusion about the term metaphysic. I thought it meant that branch of philosophy that deals with primary reality but you seem to use it like a modifier for physic as in physical as in "above and beyond physical". SUPERphysical like some sorta superpower or something. Maybe that's why I'm confused. [Krimel] Right it is about what is need for there to be a primary reality and like I said static/dynamic. Some things wiggle and some things hold still and the next thing you know you've got a primary reality. > [Krimel] > It is also important to note that children's understanding develops and > changes over time and that children regardless of culture follow a similar > developmental path. [John] That's a fascinating topic to me. I felt fortunate to have lots of kids. Each one starts out a blank slate, from the same starting point pretty much as every human that ever lived, and they develop differences and nuances so quickly. But you're right, there is this similar path upon which the differences are expressed. It's like, ok, how is THIS daughter gonna handle puberty. In her own unique way while trodding the same old path. [Krimel] You know the weird thing is that even blank slates don't start out as blank slates. They are "slates" because they have specific properties that interact with chalk to produce writing on them. Several years ago Case put it this way in a dialog with the sorely missed Scott Roberts: "The brain is kind a tabla rasa except that unlike slate it's texture is not always smooth or even flat. In places you have to use a special marker. If the light is not just right in some places you can't read what's written and some places are self luminescent. Almost always, it changes form when you stimulate it. But it starts out clean." 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/
