Dave, Thanks for jumping in on this. It seems to me "substance", is a collection of properties, which is explained in why wholes or unity is required for intelligibity Form,and subject matter are explanitory factors
Stanford says this: "Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of. The term ‘matter’ as used by Aristotle is not the name for a particular kind of stuff, nor for some ultimate constituents of bodies, such as atoms (Aristotle rejects atomism). ‘Matter’ is rather the name for whatever, for a given kind of object, meets a certain role or function, namely that of being that from which the object is constituted." and followed by: "The elimination of matter as a good candidate for being substance, leaves either form alone or the composite of form and matter. The composite seems more consonant with the doctrine of Categories, for the composite is the individual. Aristotle, however, chooses the form as more paradigmatically substance. This has puzzled some commentators." That is because Aristotle states that individuals or unity or wholes are collections of qualia predicated on explanitory meaning. Now, I can see how the school of "Aristotelian science" evolved to promote physical substance and this is the tradition that Bob is railing against, but I think if we really take a closer look through the tradition of pragmatism, we will find alot of useful information directly concerning our philosphic position within the pages of "metaphysics". -Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: david buchanan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 6:16:01 PM Subject: Re: [MD] the problem of the one and the many Hey Ron: It's a little too simple to say that Aristotle invented the metaphysics of substance but it's not exactly wrong either. Check out Stanford's article on "Substance", especially the section on Aristotle's metaphysics of substance. I think you'll find that Pirsig's complaint is substantially correct. Pun intended. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#AriAccSub dmb > Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:00:07 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] the problem of the one and the many > > Well geez Mark that was the whole point, by stating that truth is a drive > toward betterness James is saying that truth is a drive toward Quality. > Same with Aristotle. > > It seems to me it's the Pathagoreans, which Plato ultimately sides with, > that caused all the trouble. > > First by assuming physical reality is explainable by number and second, > that number exists eternal imovable and seperate from physical reality. > > Aristotle is not the culprit, in fact he falls more in line with Pirsig, James > and Socrates. > > I've read all of "metaphysics" and I have not found any support for the idea > that he > gives creedance to any sort of physical explanation, nor is the word >"substance" > > used > in my translation. > > I think we could all learn alot from reading about the philosphical problems >the > ancients addressed and in many ways it's the same problems MoQ addresses. > Only the ancients explored them more thoroughly than we have. > > > > Ron > > No harm taken > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: 118 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 1:01:11 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] the problem of the one and the many > > Hmm Ron, > > Philosophical discussion you ask? Perhaps I do not know the rules. Now, if > quoting W. James makes it philosophical, then I should perhaps go on Wiki > and cut some quotes and attribute their understanding to me, get on their > shoulders so to speak. > > No, my statement was sincere. When Truth becomes subordinate to Quality, > which is one interpretation of MoQ, then W. James' definitions which you > posted kind of fall apart. Don't you think? Perhaps I am mistaken. > > No harm intended. > > Mark > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:40 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So, 118, > > > > Does this mean you are actually going to engage in some > > philosophical discussion for a change? > > > > At least Marsha forwarded an interesting story, but you always seem > > to fail at even the smallest attempt at wit. > > > > If you actually made a statement worth responding to in any kind of > > philosophical fashion, I'd at least make an effort, but you, you're a > > genius > > trapped in a stupid persons body. > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: 118 <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 12:44:12 AM > > Subject: Re: [MD] the problem of the one and the many > > > > So, Xacto, > > > > Does this mean we can only assimilate true ideas? > > > > If so, why do we have political parties at war with each other? This makes > > truth seems awfully subjective. If that was your point, then I cannot > > disagree. Quality is above Truth, I think that's what Bob said. > > > > Also remember, that W. James was a father of modern psychology, heavily > > influenced by Darwin. He is simply talking about behavior, nothing more. > > > > And Aristotle, well he has mislead Western thinking for way too long now, > > don't you think? He did have a bewitching way with words though. All > > seems > > to make sense until you question it. He kind of got stuck in his own > > definitions (in my humble opinion, of course, but then again, I am the > > smartest man in the world). > > > > Mark > > > > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:23 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True ideas are those that we can assimilate > > > > > > > > > validate > > > > > > > > > corroborate > > > and verify. > > > > > > False ideas are those we can not. > > > > > > truth happens to an idea. > > > > > > "Primarily, and on a common sense level, the truth of a state of mind > > > means this function of a leading that is worth while." > > > > > > Ron: > > > The above is by William James, and I think this is a well stated > > appraisel > > > in fact, Aristotle makes a similar appraisel adding that the act of this > > > pursuit > > > the act of intelligibility is predicated on a betterness. > > > This betterness is pleasurable and satisfying it is wonder-ful. > > > > > > In the spirit of the state of wonder > > > > > > is a lover of wisdom > > > > > > the pantheon housing the very best ideas > > > > > > the ones with the highest human values. > > > > > > Arisitotle went so far as to name this driving feeling of wonder > > > > > > as divine. > > > > > > I believe these ideas really help inform one trying to understand what > > > B.Pirsig is talking about with the idea of Quality. > > > > > > It also greatly helps to super-impose the problem of the many and the one > > > on top of static and dynamic Quality. Static being the many and dynamic > > the > > > one. > > > > > > If Bob has'nt read "Metaphysics" in a while, I suggest book Lambda. > > > Also I suggest reading the conclusions Aristotle came to regarding > > > the one and the many. > > > In his day, it seemed, Aristotle took the problem of the "one and the > > many" > > > much the same way Bob Pirsig took the problem of "subject and object." > > > One might even say they are the same problem. > > > The many ways to interpet and understand one experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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 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
