Hey DMB! You know what? I write two really long posts trying to explain why I think The Intellectual Level = SOM and your response is to quibble about William James? Well, delighted to see you agree with me! ;)
Bait...bait...bait :) Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of david buchanan > Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 2:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment > > > Mary said: > We are all totally mired in Subject-Object Logic for every minute of > every day everywhere. The breakthrough, the singular THING that makes > the MoQ so important is that Pirsig was the FIRST PERSON EVER in the > WEST to stand up and point that out. His idea is enormous. Every > metaphysics the West is founded upon, everything we think we believe, > everything we do is based on this fundamental principle of > DISCRETENESS. I am different from you. I am "in" the world, a part of > the world, but I am not the world. This we believe in the West and all > other Western metaphysics takes this as a given. It is not questioned. > It is not examined. ... Is it a heresy in this group to admit that > maybe Pirsig isn't the only one that's ever had this idea? He's just > the only one in the West - the only one I could understand. > > dmb says: > > SOM has been very common among Modern Western philosophers and > scientists. It has become ingrained in common sense realism and so I > can understand why it might seem so inescapable. > > But it's just not true that Pirsig was the first person ever to point > this out. More than a hundred years ago, William James took direct aim > at subject-object dualism. > > "The first great pitfall from which [radical empiricism] will save us > is an artificial conception of the relations between knower and known. > Throughout the history of philosophy the subject and its object have > been treated as absolutely discontinuous entities; and thereupon the > presence of the latter to the former, or the 'apprehension' by the > former of the latter, has assumed a paradoxical character which all > sorts of theories had to be invented to overcome." > > James talks like a Victorian but it translates into very simple claim; > the big bad gap between subjects and objects is fake. He's also offer > radical empiricism as a way out of this fake problem. This gap between > subjects and objects, I think, is more or less the same thing as your > "fundamental principle of discreteness" and so he is addressing your > issues and questions pretty directly. After naming a few of the various > attempts at solutions to this fake problem in the recent history of > philosophy, he says,.. > > "All the while, in the very bosom of the finite experience, every > conjunction required to make the relation intelligible is given in > full." > > Again, this translates into a simple claim; there is no gap between > subjects and objects because they are already connected to each other > within experience. To show this connection, James asks us to pay closer > attention to the way we actually experience thoughts and things. He > makes a huge deal out of the experiences that connect thoughts and > things, referring to these transitional experiences as "conjunctive > relations". (Always reminds me of Schoolhouse Rock; sing it along with > me now... "Conjunction Junction, what's your function?") James is > saying that subjects and objects are not "absolutely discontinuous > entities". They're not even entities. They're just different portions > or phases of experience with one naturally leading to the other and > entering into all sorts of relations as stream of experience unfolds > from moment to moment. The differences between thoughts and things are > known and felt in experience and that experience is quite real but to > then take those differenc > es and turn them into ontological realities or construe them as the > very ground of reality, well then you've opened up that fake gap and > the fake problems come rushing back in. > > "continuous transition is one sort of a conjunctive relation; and to be > a radical empiricist means to hold fast to this conjunctive relation of > all others, for this is the strategic point, the position through > which, if a hole be made, all the corruptions of dialectics and all the > metaphysical fictions pour into our philosophy. The holding fast to > this relation means ... to take it just as we feel it, and not to > confuse ourselves with abstract thought about it.." > > > Lunch is ready, gotta go. > dmb > > > > > > > > From Lila's Child: > > > Bo: A while back, we spoke about the emergence of intellect and I > said > > > that in a way Subject/Object Metaphysics could be seen as identical > to > > > the intellectual level of the MOQ! > > > Pirsig: This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude > > > non-subject-object constructions such as symbolic logic, higher > > > mathematics, and computer languages from the intellectual level and > > > gives them no home. Also the term "quality" as used in the MOQ > would be > > > excluded from the intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives > > > intellectual meaning to the term quality, would also have to be > > > excluded > > > from the intellectual level.If we just say the intellect is the > > > manipulation of language-derived symbols for experience, these > problems > > > of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur. > > > > > > Bo: Long before the Lila Squad days, it had puzzled me greatly that > > > Subject/Object metaphysics may be viewed as the intellectual level > of > > > MOQ! I even raised the question in a letter to Pirsig, but he did > not > > > respond. > > > Pirsig: I don't remember not responding, so it must have been an > > > oversight. I don't think the subject-object level is identical with > > > intellect. Intellect is simply thinking, and one can think without > > > involving the subject-object relationship. Computer language is not > > > primarily structured into subjects and objects. Algebra has no > subjects > > > and objects. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your > inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL > :ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3 > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
