On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi John, > > Hey Mary, Finally getting 'round to the old business... You: We seem to have a failure to communicate? The thinker is thinking about > things of their own construction. Pretty much exactly the problem wouldn't > you say? > Me: Yes! Exactly! We do have a problem in communication and especially when we try and communicate the thinker thinking about the thinker. > > > [Mary] > > > Logic itself is entirely based in the > > > subject, the thinker, analyzing the object, the thing thought about. > Me: You know, it's interesting and something I didn't bring up before, but something about OOP made me think about Pirsig, when I took Java once in college. I can't even recall the connection in my mind then, but just that there was one. I think I'd read an article in Wired about Gosling and for some reason it clicked that he'd considered objects differently than they were usually construed. Or maybe I just had a good teacher who translated it that way. Or maybe I just had Pirsig mania and everything named "object oriented" got my spidey sense tinglin'. But I don't buy the idea that logic is fundamentally of a subjective/objective composition. It doesn't scan as "proven", to me, and neither can I say it about spatial intelligence which produces high quality music and art, yet I can hardly deny such extremely advanced human mentation the term "intellectual". Such activity is extremely and highly intellectual in the play of concept and abstraction, meaning and resonance. But necessarily S/O oriented? I don't get that at all. Admittedly, thinking about art, teaching about art history, analyzing art after the fact of its creation is inevitably S/O oriented with a subjective preference for objective patterns. But in the moment of realization and creation, I don't get that SOM flavor you insist colors every single aspect of humanity's highest ideas and creativity. [John] > > Nah, there are more things under heaven and earth to be discussed, than > > we > > can even dream. > > > > "The man of character lives at home without exercising his mind and > > performs > > actions without worry.... Appearing stupid, he goes about like one who > > has > > lost his way. He has plenty of money to spend, but does not know where > > it > > comes from." > > > > Chuang-tzu > > > [Mary Replies] > I didn't realize they had Republicans in Chaung-tzu's time. > > Me: He sounds more like a welfare deadbeat, to me. > > [John] > > But if you wanna argue about it, as you seem to, I'll ask, how can the > > cortex observe and control the cortex? > > [Mary Replies] > If you want to go down this path, I can reply that the cortex is the > hardware and it "knows not" what software is running upon it. > > Me: Ah so. You believe all knowing is in the software, then I presume. And do you agree with me, that this software is malleable? That differing programs can be loaded than American Online 2.0? That there is the possibillity, likelihood and evidence that SOM 1.0 is not the only possible OS the cortex can operate under? I mean, Humankind has a long history, many differing ideas and much evidence of more sophisticated world-views than the simplistic and easily dismissable idea that reality is composed of objects to be studied, and there is nothing else. My first introduction to the conflict in worldviews, was when my first and only living philosophy teacher, G Sessions, quoted the book Little Big Man on the shock the natives felt when they encountered the European's view that everything they saw was dead and manipuable. Various philosophers and mystics have fought against that values-free metaphysical stance since it arose, but none so effectively and well and definitively as Pirsig, imo I'm here to continue that fight and I conclude others are too. Even tho, as I put forth in my Objectivism Triumphant post, that it seems to me to be a losing battle. The natives found that out a long time ago. Take care, John PS: I wanted to add that I liked your derogatory comment about the awkward and distracting use of the feminine personal pronoun. Even though I've used it, it always felt contrived. But I figured, that's cuz I'm a guy. But people use it, I think, not to cater to feminine sensibility, but to cater to improving accuracy in language. Sometime the same issue comes up in religious circles like Unitarians or something that refer to God as "her". But the most interesting discussion of calling God "Him", was M. Scott Peck's explanation that compared to God, he feels like a little girl, hence the reasoning behind the masulinazation of deity. It is maleness which woos, pursues and actively penetrates. When he thinks about God, it just feels right to consider God as the raper and man as the rapee. 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
