For Bo,
2 Oct.:
I had said::
> I cannot see that "philosophic idealism" says anything else than
> "normal idealism", namely that (in Andre's words) "our
> world/universe is a figment of our imagination" and is SOM's
> subjective part. Why are you laboring inside SOM's premises believing
> that the MOQ is some subjectivist or spiritual movement? Which it
> isn't!
> "Objects are an idea" ... what utter nonsense. In a MOQ context
> subjects and objects - the S/O distinction - is the intellectual levels
> repertoire; An immense value but due to its static nature it will lead
> to paradoxes if treated as existence's fundament. Write that hundred
> times on your blackboard!!!!
Ron replied:
> There are two quotes from Lila chpter 4 which shed some light on the
> view you have:
"Margaret Mead said, 'He feared premature generalization like
the plague, and continually warned us against it.'
Generalization should be based on the facts and only on the
facts. 'It is indubitable that science was his religion,' Kroeber
said. 'He called his early convictions materialistic. Science
could tolerate nothing "subjective"; value judgments " and by
infection even values considered as phenomena - must be
absolutely excluded.'"
"By the time Phaedrus finished reading about Boas he was
confident he'd identified the source of the immune system he
was up against, the same immune system that had so rejected
Dusenberry's views. It was classical nineteenth-century
science and its insistence that science is only a method for
determining what is true and not a body of beliefs in itself.
There have been many schools of anthropological theory other
than Boas' but Phaedrus could find none that opposed him on
the matter of scientific objectivity."
Bo replies:
How you see this as defying my assertion that the 4th level is the S/O
distinction (in the "objective-over-subjective" sense) is beyond me.
Boas was the epitome of the scientific - objective - approach and
science is the intellectual level's foremost pattern, and this is what
Pirsig's felt his Quality system was "up against". It more than anything
proves the SOL and moreover that the MOQ is something beyond
intellect.
Ron:
Since you omitted my explaination I will post it again, but since we are
both in agreement how the above quote "proves" your SOL, and how it
supports scientific objectivity, I feel it "proves" my position on your point
of view.
SOL promotes the domination of scientific objectivity, an outdated problematic
way of thinking.
One that is inconsistant with modern physics, and inconsistant with RMP's
MoQ.
If you would please, address my previous post unless you think Einstein,
Heisenburg,
Bohr, and the rest of the founding fathers of modern physics are fools too as
well as Pirsig.
Ron's previous post:
I think you'll find that you are trapped in the
immune systems way of thinking.
Your response:
"Objects are an idea" ... what utter nonsense."
says it all.
This is the hurdle you have never been able to get over.
It exposes the SOL for what it is.
A scientifically objective interpretation.
Your view " tolerates
nothing "subjective"; value judgments — and by infection even values
considered as phenomena - must be absolutely excluded.'"
The problem, you see is that when you consider subjectivism as
"our world/universe is a figment of our imagination"
You are misunderstanding the position. Modern physics
has found that "objective reality" does not exist as we commonly
percieve it to be. That what we actually are and experience is
composed of complex interdependant" fields of force" which
is a polite way of saying "we have no idea what it is" it's mostly
vast empty space, but space seems to composed of force too.
So what that means is that our common view of things our
"metaphysical" assumptions are just that....assumptions.
TIME and SPACE are RELATIVE to the OBSERVER.
IE. TIME and SPACE are subjective. Objects are subjective
interpretations of experience.
Well shit! that leaves science in a pretty fine mess!
Wait, there are a few people who have considered the matter!
What we subjectivly interpret depends on what we value.
And what we value is based largely on experience (which we
have found we can not completely and absolutely understand
based on what we have found) because....drumrole...it's dynamic
and everchanging!. It may not be defined because it can't be defined.
All we can ever do with our limited viewpoint is struggle to comprehend
it by creating simplistic, limited, exaggerated concepts (static quality).
And if you say this is nonsense...then you are about 100 yrs behind the times
and are part of the immune system.
I assume you still consider this nonsense.
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/
