Marsha said:
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.
dmb says:
Unbelievable.
So you DID NOT say "Buddhism used logic and the scientific method" and you DID
NOT give that as your reason for thinking "Buddhism cannot be used as an
exception to the Intellectual Level being SOM"?
I mean, if you're NOT equating logic and science with SOM, then the quotes
indicate nothing about whether or not Buddhism is an exception to SOM.
Anyway, I think SOM has to be inflated and expanded beyond its actual meaning
before it can be equated with intellect. I think that supporters of the idea do
a lot of inflating and so your moves here look like some more of that.
> > 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
