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 for a few.) >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 this 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. If the first is not true then the "What is your substantive field?" issue is certainly could be big a contributing factor. When I recently posted the quote about RMP leaving India and read "empirical scientist" for the first time I thought, "How can he make that claim?" To that point in his life he had dropped out of a science program in his freshman year, gone to the Army, by his own admission got a BA in philosophy by the generosity of his teachers, then dropped out of Benares. I know a little bit about philosophy department in state schools. A large dose of the history of philosophy with a minor dose in whatever current branch the profs are following. They generally attract people who like to read and write but don't have a clue about what they want to do with their lives. A BA in philosophy from a state school and a sharp shovel may get you a job digging ditches if you don't tell about the degree. He drifts around some more supporting himself based on his writing skills, brushes up against a little technology, journalism degree, teaches a little English Comp, and still thinks of himself as an "empirical scientist". Any wonder there would be skeptics in the scientific and academic communities. He has no experience in science and is mostly a self taught philosopher! He writes an autobiographical novel with some "far out" philosophical musings, drops out of sight for 15 years, and then does it again. All the while whining under his breath, "Why am I so misunderstood.?" Geeezzz! I wonder why? But Einstein didn't do well in school and was working in the patents office so backgrounds are not everything. But when Einstein finally jumped in the intellectual pond he stayed there and swum to the top. Pirsig stuck his toe in the water and ran for the trees. Big difference on getting accepted. The discounting or misunderstanding that social institutions guard the gates to the intellectual level. >> 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. Hey we agree on something. Probably for different reasons though. When I was working on by "Horns of Dilemma" illustration I kept thinking he reject left, right, and decided on neither going between the horns. But one available avenue he never mentioned was a union, both/and. One of the reasons I think he had to go on to Lila is that if we judge ZaMM metaphysics by the Classic/Romantic diagram how much useful difference does it really make? Undefined Quality is elevated over the subject/object split. But Romantic Quality (pre-intellectual awareness) which I see a including things like, gut reaction, intuition, etc doesn't really improve our understanding of that stuff at all. Then if we get down the bottom of the Classic branch we have subjective qualities and objective qualities that seem to parallel current definitions: Objective: all the characteristic that make a thing what it is Subjective: degree of excellence or value. Full circle, makes little on the ground operative difference at all. Dave > 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/
