[Dave] What is amusing is not only do you now know his complete position without ever reading his book, but that his position aligns and supports yours, Pirsig's, and James'. What's the old saying about shunning fools?
[Krimel] That really is the heart of it, you know. dmb is not interested in pragmatism or philosophy of mind at all really. He is interested in supporting his interpretation of Pirsig. He begins with his conception of it and is only interested in finding support for it. As a result he only looks in a narrow range of places and only finds what he is looking for. This is the Greek style of deduction. It is top down. Beginning from a statement of truth and reasoning towards particulars. It was the ruling mode of thought throughout the middle ages. It was this influence of the Greek style of thinking on Christianity that produced the field of Apologetics. Christian apologists from Origin to Aquinas took the premises of the faith and used deduction to justify them. It is this peculiar and outmoded form that dmb bring to the table. Whatever Pirsig said must be true and requires a defense no matter how contrived. We see in Descartes this style in its last gasps. Descartes' cogito was pulled out of him. He was not a skeptic. He was looking to answer skepticism. His cogito is product of 17th century European thinking in the sense that it was a reaction against it. He was on the edge of the scientific revolution that began with Bacon and became final with Newton. Descartes pushes the process forward but still clings to and uses the notion of God's perfect goodness in his argument. In fact he announces the cogito and then takes those odd sounding turns of premise based "logic" to escape it. It reminds me of Newton who gives us the inductive style of reasoning full blown, all the while dabbling in alchemy and Kabbalah style readings of scripture. As culture begins to embrace a new vision it still clings to the old ways of seeing. It is impossible even for people like Descartes and Newton to sling off all of the shackles of the old at once. Or like James, Wallace and Fechner unable to see past spiritualist notions while they are actively engaged in their undoing. I fear that in modern times we are sloughing of old styles of thinking at such a rapid pace that we run the risk having culture just dissolving into slough. A philosophy that sees the world as a process of static and dynamic flow would come in handy right about now. You know, one that embraces the process of evolution and Heraclytian change. One that recommends against clinging to static points of view and in favor of openness to what is new and dynamic in each passing moment. One that brings probability front and center and appreciates the psychological and philosophical dimensions of uncertainty. Darwin meets Lao Tsu if you will. 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
