Bo
> Physics, science have certainly moved on since Kant - Relativity and
> Quantum Mech. f.ex. - but philosophy itself not at all.
In Your Not So Humble Opinion. There has been philosophy going on just none
you care to accept. IE James and all that group.
>With Kant SOM
> had reached the end of its its tether: the subject supplied some (a-
> priori) qualities: Time,space and causality, yet from out there came
> some priori something that were filtered trough the said sieves. And
> since Kant nothing has happened philosophical-wise, the famous
> Quantum Theory results find no explanation by SOM and the big
> science magazines that once used to be full of physics stuff has
> given up on it and every other article is now on psychological,
> behavioral, brain and mind stuff.
Do you have problems with statements like this?
[Zen and the Brain pg 3]
"Ideologies, philosophies, religious doctrines, world models, value systems,
and the like will stand or fall depending on the kinds of answers that brain
research eventually reveals. It all comes together in the [human] brain."
(Roger Sperry 1913-94)
And if so why? On one hand you privilege "SOM science" with (snip from
below)
>jive with science which is confined to the 4th level
... being the highest (only?) achievement (intellectual level) of man then
on the other hand seem to sneer at the same science's effort to understand
how the brain works.
For instance science has tackled Kant's "a priori" and made some progress.
Some sense of time, space, and self/other does indeed seem to be built in
from birth. Have all the particulars been teased out? No, but humans
studying humans scientifically is very difficult to do. But progress has
been made.
>See when SOM fails there is no
> alternative, academy won't touch the MOQ with a poker.
Wonder why this is?
First it could be fatally flawed, they easily see that, and we amateurs are
just too dumb to recognize it.
>
>> One is the whole issues of levels and the hierarchies shown in the
>> ZaMM and SODV diagrams; Are these graphic models helpful or deceiving?
>
> Are you asking me? At least one can't go directly from SOM to the
> static levels, the DQ/SQ split must first replace the S/O one, after that
> the levels are most revealing. However the diagrams in ZAMM is not
> the least helpful, rather deceiving. The ones in the SODV paper?? The
> ones about MOQ and the Uncertainty Principle may be valid for all I
> know, but the diagram about intellectual + social = subjective/biology +
> inorganic = objective is the source of all ills.
>
>> Second are RMP descriptions of the codes associated with the levels
>> and their relationships correct? Do they jive with current science?
>
> The levels and their internal "codes" are perfect, but this neither jives
> or need to jive with science which is confined to the 4th level and THIS
> jives with EXPERIENCE.
>
>> Third is what happened to Romantic Quality and pre-intellectual
>> awareness in the transition between the ZaMM and Lila?
>
> Nothing! The Romantic/Classic has signs of the Dynamic/Static one,
> so Pirsig needed not say that it was a "false start", rather a good start.
> "Pre-intellectual awareness" ...well the 'awareness' term grates my
> nerves as it sound like a "consciousness" must be present for - for
> instance - inorganic value to operate. But this will take a whole page to
> explain.
>
>> But first maybe a brief synopsis of my limited understanding of the
>> "Science Wars" First there was/is "hard science"(physics, biology etc)
>> and "soft science"(anthropology, sociology etc) the former looking
>> down on latter as being a form of subjectivism. Not real science.
>> Second, starting almost with the Greeks there was an ever increasing
>> specialization and professionalization of science such that by the
>> start of the 20th century there were so many specialized branches each
>> with its own jargon, language, that communication and understanding
>> breaks down. No one can understand it all let alone try to figure out
>> the philosophical consequences.
>
>> Enter Thomas Kuhn, a Harvard trained Ph'd physicist and a scientific
>> fence jumper who went to the dark side devoting most of his career to
>> the history and philosophy of science. That's not science. Or was it?
>> What he proposed was, if science is so good at what it does why not
>> use science to study science itself?
>
> All this is interesting enough but we must be caught in academy's
> (SOM's) internal squabblings. The fact is that the S/O is an unstable
> configuration, I've called it a "see-saw", when objectivity goes down
> subjectivity goes up, but it does not last then it reverses. A typical
> example is SOM's "nurture/nature" off-shot, i.e. that we are either a
> result of upbringing or of genes. These two has (by now I believe)
> equilibrium, i.e. an agreement that we are influenced by both by some
> inexplained mechanism. But it does not last, a "materialist" will emerge
> and declare that genes are the REAL cause, and this may be the
> fashion for years until it shifts back to "nurture" for some period until a
> new equilibrium emerges, before it starts anew. And this goes for all
> SOM's dualisms from the subject/object one itself, to mind/matter,
> mind/body, mental/corporeal, psychic/physic, culture/nature,
> nurture/nature .... etc. there are more that I can't recall, but your "soft-/
> hard sciences" are part of SOM's repertoire and as unstable as the
> rest. The instability is sure sign of the S/O not being existence's
> fundament.
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
