Hey Platt, Ever here of a thesaurus? See, there is this crazy notion that different words can have the same meaning
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 10:55:00 AM Subject: Re: [MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment Hey DMB, Perhaps you will see fit to save us the time and trouble of trying to find philosophers, postmodern or otherwise, who use the specific terms "intellectual level" and "subject-object metaphysics" in their texts by furnishing us a few quotes. I for one would appreciate it. Platt On 25 Feb 2010 at 7:35, david buchanan wrote: > > > Mati said to Horse: > To those who believe they are Pirsig loyalists, Bo certainly seems like a > heretic. Then again there are many in the formal philosophy departments > around the world that think Pirsig is a heretic to the traditional > philosophic steeped in SOM. Intellectually dishonest?.... sorry I honestly > don't see it that way. > > > dmb says: > > As I have repeatedly pointed out to Bo, today's philosophy departments are > filled with anti-SOM heretics. Rejecting SOM is practically the definition of > postmodernism, which is dominates our universities. This is one of the > reasons for the revival of James and Dewey and pragmatism in general; because > it includes a specific attack on SOM. And how is that attack mounted? > Intellectually, of course. We even see Pirsig quoting James on this point at > the end of Lila's chapter 29. > > Do I think Bo is being dishonest in dismissing this point? Well, it's > probably a case of self-deception and willful ignorance. If Bo says that SOM > and the intellectual level are identical despite the fact that there is more > than a hundred years of intellectual work that rejects SOM, then he can only > maintain his position by pretending that these thinkers don't count. This is > not just an unreasonable position. People get angry at the stubborn refusal > to accept evidence that is both overwhelming in its scope and unmistakable in > its specificity. I mean, Radical Empiricism IS a rejection of SOM and that > was developed a hundred years ago. Within pragmatism, some of today's > academic professionals self-identify as radical empiricists and even insist > that it is essential to pragmatism. > I mean, the idea that philosophy remains steeped in SOM simply isn't true. > Rejecting it is a real option that real people take. This can be dished up in > quotes from text books assigned to students and from the assigning > professor's own lips. Nobody with access to a search engine needs to take my > word for it. Check it out. Look it up. See for yourself. 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/
