dmb, I wrote "To recap why I think Buddhism cannot be used as an exception to the Intellectual Level being SOM, I offer these to quotes that indicate that Buddhism used logic and the scientific method for an objective study of 'Mind'." I DID NOT write that SOM equated to logic and the scientific method.
Marsha On Apr 27, 2010, at 4:57 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Steve, Marsha: > > > Marsha said: > To recap why I think Buddhism cannot be used as an exception to the > Intellectual Level being SOM, I offer these to quotes that indicate that > Buddhism used logic and the scientific method for an objective study of > 'Mind'. > > > > dmb says: > > Can SOM be equated with logic and the scientific method? I don't think so. In > fact, when James published his essays in radical empiricism, Dewey was > impressed with the way it retains empirical science even though it explicitly > rejects SOM. He was pretty psyched, in fact. > > Anyway, I offer these quotes to show you how most pragmatists line up on > this... > > “The instant field of the present is at all times what I call the ‘pure > experience’. It is only virtually or potentially either a subject or an > object as yet” (James 1912, 23). > “When a subject-object metaphysics regards matter and mind as eternally > separate and eternally unalike, it creates a platypus bigger than the solar > system” (Pirsig 1991, 153). > “Realists and idealists assume that subject and object are discrete and then > debate which term deserves first rank. Dewey assumes that what is primary is > a whole situation – ‘subject’ and ‘object’ have no a priori, atomistic > existences but are themselves DERIVED from situations to serve certain > purposes, usually philosophical” (Hildebrand p27) > Hildebrand says, "An empirical approach to metaphysics need not presuppose a > subject/object dualism - indeed, if experience is perspicuously attended to, > it should not...Since Dewey will not begin metaphysical inquiries by > presupposing a subject/object dualism, he does not need to ward off the same > skeptical demons that plagued Descartes...Dewey hoped that through examples > and empirical observations his distinction between primary and secondary > experience would be patent and its adoption might economize intellectual > effort" > Notice that they are not only rejecting SOM here but also taking up those two > categories of experience. Primary and secondary are dynamic and static or > preconceptual and reflective. Dewey also calls them Had and Known. He, James > and Pirsig are all the list of Pragmatic radical empiricists. But Rorty is > not one of these precisely because he rejects this other, non-SOM distinction. > "To understand why Rorty is wrong," Hildebrand says, "requires that we > briefly revisit and defend the underlying distinction between primary and > secondary experience, a distinction Rorty also rejects as 'bad faith'". > (116-7) > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your > inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > 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
