[dmb] Yes, these are exactly the kind of irrelevant responses I'm talking about. Your replies only demonstrate that you don't understand what reductionism is or why it's a problem. In fact, you cite reductionists in your uncomprehending answers. (Wilson and Dawkins) In that case, at least, I already tried to explain how and why it's irrelevant. All you do is repeat the assertions being challenged without actually address the challenge.
[Krimel] I understand that there are several different kinds of reductionism. Speaking, reducing things to words, is just one of them. The only kind to which there is general philosophical rejection is Dennett's greedy reductionism. Since you have thus far be unable to demonstrate a problem with any other kind, it is difficult most of the time to know what you mean other than "reduction - BAD." Nor have you shown specifically what is wrong with either Wilson or Dawkins except for Dawkin's pissy attitude. Since you have never even stated a specific objection then I have not addressed any. [dmb] There's also a lot of attitude but that doesn't mean anything. Putting a sneer in your voice doesn't constitute an argument. [Krimel] This is really funny coming from you. [dmb] And citing Wikipedia against actual philosophers like Rosenthal and Putnam is weaker than weak. It's foolish. It also shows that you're searching the net to find out what I'm saying. One day, when you think systems theory is an answer to reductionism, you claim it as your own constant companion. Then when you find out that's a form of reductionism too you say, "hey, I'm not an expert". [Krimel] Do tell? Please find me a quote of Rosenthal or Putnam trashing systems theory. I addressed your comment not theirs. And your response is just to duel ad hominims? I am not an expert on systems theory although I get the impression Ian is close. But I did specifically and thoroughly address the question gav raised. [dmb] Man, what a weasel. Here is one of my favorite recent examples of your empty sneering... Krimel said to dmb: You make this extraordinarily lame point that the narrator in ZMM is a literary devise. Perhaps but have you been reading Strauss or something. Like the book is code and sometimes it means what it says and sometimes it doesn't. Are we now to start looking for hidden messages and determining that for more than half of ZMM Pirsig is talking backward talk? dmb continues: This is fairly typical. While striking a pose as the tough-minded scientific type you characterize my assertions as "lame" or "romantic" or "new age" or cultish" or anything you can think of that sounds insulting. Meanwhile, the assertion itself is simply dismissed without being addressed. You have so far failed to grapple with the explanation that Pirsig himself gives in the introduction to the 1999 version of ZAMM, which I posted in reply. In fact, you haven't mentioned it or even made reference to this contrary evidence. [Krimel] This was about the only thing you commented on in a fairly lengthy post. It is exactly what I mean by running away and changing the subject. But just to be clear I will not discussed the literary devices used in ZMM. It is irrelevant. I am perfectly happy to take any passage and discuss it anyway anyone thinks it should be considered. [dmb] The worst thing is, you're constantly taking my complaints about reducing experience to physiological processes as if they were a denial that such processes exist or as a suggestion that the biological sciences are worthless. Man, that's just stupid. That's not even close to what I'm saying. [Krimel] Then why do you keep saying such obviously stupid things? What I have been trying to show in fits and starts is that there are a variety of separate processes going on in our nervous systems. Each of these processes serves some function in our survival. These functions have evolved and are localized in the brain. Perception, which is James' radical empiricism, is a synthesis of sensory systems and their integration with past experience. Our understanding of the world grows from the bottom up and to talk about experience without an understanding of the physiological processes involved is just talking out of your ass. [dmb] Butt us start with the basics. You tell me what you think reductionism is and why it would be considered a problem. I mean that generally. Set aside my complaints and the MOQ and just focus on reductionism itself. What is it, Krimel? [Krimel] Ok, but let me remind you that no where does Pirsig say reductionism is bad. In fact in the only place he even mentions it, he is pretty positive about it. But reduction just means breaking big problems down into smaller problems to see how the answers to the smaller problems improve our understanding of bigger ones. It can also mean searching for the necessary causes of things. It can also happen when one set of ideas subsumes another. As when Newtonian theory subsumed Keppler and Galileo and then Relativity Theory subsumed Newtonian physics or when the MoQ subsumes SOM. Language is reduction of ideas to sound. In this sense reduction is a bit like encoding. We can remove lots and lots of the original, thickness of experience without significant loss of meaning. I don't see a problem with any of this and if you do, you have never said what it is. You just do a lot of name calling and labeling. [dmb] You can even use Weakipedia if you think that's a good idea. [Krimel] Actually, I think it is a great idea and have outsourced a lot of memory function to the internet and my new laptop. As I have said many times, science and technology in the past 50 years have created the greatest' expansion of human consciousness in history. I think it is genuinely "weak" to pretend it is evil, that it will all go away, that we can ignore it or that we can look to the ancient past of guidance. [dmb] But as I see it, that's like trying to understand "art" by looking the word up in the dictionary. It's not a bad place to start if you're completely disoriented and need to grasp the most basic ideas but it's not gonna help much in a philosophical debate. [Krimel] It only makes sense to look up the meaning of a term if you want to talk about it with other people. If you just want to listen to music or walk through a museum or sing a lullaby to your children it isn't necessary at all. But if you want to talk about the meaning of art or the role of art in culture or the economics or art or the philosophy or art then your approach is what guarantees disorientation; as you have so often been quick to demonstrate. [dmb] And that's another thing. I keep talking about radical empiricism and you keep talking about the physiology of experience, as if a theory of truth could be found in the body. That's fundamentally confused as well as being a conspicuous form of reductionism. [Krimel] You keep talking about radical empiricism as if you own the term. I showed with many, many quotes in the post I quoted here that you are misusing and abusing James shamelessly. Your response then and now was to run and hide and change the subject. 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/
