Ham, It's good to hear from you. Well said in every point. 'Subject and object as co-dependant twins of existential reality" means neither side is primary or fundamental. That coincides with Pirsig's explanation of the Quality event being where subject meets object, organism relates to environment. I believe you've got it exactly right and right in line with Pirsig.
With warm regards, John Thanks for your clarification, but it makes no sense to me. The subject is > a "distinct entity" by virtue of > its individuated, proprietary consciousness. To say that consciousness > exists only as a "process" or "function" is to deny the Knower without which > the experienced world would be impossible. If consciousness is > "fictitious", how can the thoughts and precepts it holds be "fully real"? > Subject and object are the co-dependent twins of existential reality. > > > The idea that subjectivity/objectivity characterizes the duality of >> existence >> is what we call SOM. Subjects and objects are the dueling entities that >> James and Pirsig are criticizing. The reasons for rejecting this dualism >> are >> philosophical, not because they think Descartes was an idiot or because >> they're pushing some prior belief system. >> > > Co-dependency of mind and matter does not necessitate a "duel" any more > than does the co-dependency of biology and physics in creating living > organisms or being and nothingness in constituting a relational universe. > The empirical fact is that existence is the divided, 'processive' mode of > Reality, not its essence. Thoughts, feelings, experiences, and judgments > are all differentiated, as are the objects and events that constitute > subjective knowledge. Neither the philosopher nor the scientist can > construct an "absolute monism" out of what is by nature divided. The > attempt to do so is fallacious. Moreover, in the absence of a relational > system, Value could not be realized. > > In the essay titled "A World of Pure Experience", James says, >> "The first great pitfall from which such a radical standing by experience >> 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. ... >> >> >> See, he's saying that SOM has created this fake problem of how to >> get our subjective ideas to correspond with the objective reality that >> they >> supposedly represent. The various schools of philosophy have invented >> all kinds of solutions, but they're all just as fake as the problem. >> In other words, everybody has been operating with the assumptions of SOM >> for a long time. 17th century philosophy has become our common sense >> and so it's only natural that this duality of existence would seem so >> clear to you. >> This is what we're handed when we put on those cultural eye-glasses. >> But philosophers have generally come to the conclusion that SOM is simply >> incoherent. It's so futile that the neo-pragmatists have given up on truth >> theories >> and epistemology altogether. In any case, radical empiricism says that SOM >> is NOT the duality of existence. It says that "subjects" and "objects" are >> not >> two different kinds of substances that make experience possible, that they >> are >> not the starting points of experience. Instead, they are secondary >> concepts >> derived from experience. We believe in these concepts because they work, >> because they function in experience. And that's what James and Pirsig are >> looking at, the ongoing process of experience. They both want to alter >> the >> attitudes of objectivity that results from SOM and instead "admit feelings >> to >> full standing ..as aspects of rationality". >> >> As Richardson puts it, "The result of James's radical empiricism is to >> move >> the modern mind away from seventeenth-century Cartesian dualism and >> toward what we might call process philosophy; to wean us away from falling >> back on conceptions and to encourage us to trust our perceptions; to admit >> feelings to full standing, along with ideas, as aspects of rationality." >> > > So long as we are cognizant creatures, we will rationalize precepts from > what we experience. THIS is why relational experience "works", why Science > is an effective approach to problem-solving, and why we are free to > discriminate between the value of excellence and mediocrity. But all these > principles disappear when Reality is viewed from the absolute, > non-differentiated perspective. And only metaphysics can offer a solution > to the so-called "duality problem". > > Best regards, > Ham > > > 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
