Hi DMB, Mary quoted something: For centuries, philosophers from Plato forward have used the term noetic to refer to experiences that pioneering psychologist William James (1902) described as: …states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority.
Mary said: Discounting the flowery, post-Victorian prose, you could go to any Christian church tomorrow and hear this kind of sentiment used to describe what it feels like to experience God. dmb says: The date tells me that was James in his Varieties of Religious Experience and he is talking about one of the features of a mystical experience. It has a noetic quality, meaning the experiencer has a sense of having learned something important from the experience. It is a description based on many reports, which make up the bulk of Varieties. In that context, the term is used to describe a particular kind of alteration in a person's consciousness. But I was using the term in reference to everything, as a description of reality in general. Context matters, of course, and so you're just hopping topics and making a mess here. And bringing Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell into the picture really makes me wonder how your mind works. [Mary] It seems that the meaning of my original post was unclear to you. I have the expectation that when I say things like "My point being...", the reader would see that as "my point" as opposed to creating a new one. Here is the part you overlooked in my original post. Just to be completely clear, the info about the astronaut was introduced to illustrate just how slippery and imprecise the word noetics can be, and how easily it can be hi-jacked for other purposes, even by people as ostensibly intelligent as an astronaut who has walked on the moon. ...and for the record, I am not a follower of the brand of noetics promoted by this or any other astronaut. :) [quote Mary previously] So much for noetics. It seems to be a term easily hi-jacked or at least misconstrued. My point being that William James would likely have felt more resonance with Edgar Mitchell's definition than what I construe to be yours. ...and this 'point' is validated by your own statement above, "In that context, the term is used to describe a particular kind of alteration in a person's consciousness. But I was using the term in reference to everything, as a description of reality in general." Well, now we all know. [dmb] Yes, of course I realize that insults will never sway another person to my point of view. That's why it's a good idea to wait until you're convinced that the other guy is incapable of being swayed, then you insult him. Then you can say insulting things, usually things about how he or she is unreasonable or incompetent and that it is therefore a waste of my time to even try to sway them. And it hurts the one targeted of course and so it seems quite unkind but when those insulting assertions are true and conversation with them really is a waste of time, then the insulter is acting with great kindness toward all those posters whose time is being wasted and the "insults" are more like an accurate description of the quality of the contributor in question. Come on. How much nonsense are we supposed to tolerate? Should we have no standards at all? Does civility mean we have to pretend that everyone is sane and wise and there's no such thing as nonsense? No, of course not, and there is something truly wrong and bad about tolerating too much nonsense in a place like this. It's seriously undermines the point and purpose of this forum, of its reason for being in the first place. [Mary] Ok. Active listening involves paraphrasing what the speaker has just said using your own words. In this way the speaker can be sure they have been understood. It does not imply agreement, just understanding. You are convinced that you know a lot of things about me. I am not as certain of this as you are, since I've had to spend the last couple of posts clearing up things you think I said that I did not say, but I'll go with you on this. let's see if I can get this right. You are convinced that I am rigid and inflexible. You find this offensive, and believe yourself to be open and flexible. You believe I am stupid. You believe yourself to be highly intelligent and I sense the implication that you feel superior to many people you interact with. You believe it is ok to insult anyone that you judge to be unreasonable or incompetent, and not just ok, but your duty. You believe this to be a kindness you extend to others on the discuss. Perhaps you do not take any pleasure at all in being insulting, but feel it is your obligation for the protection of others, who might otherwise have to be unecessarily exposed to stupidity. What I am unclear about is whether you see your insults as a kindness to me as well? They do shoot horses, after all. [dmb] Mary, Pirsig talks about William James over the course of several chapters and any reasonable person can see that I'm only following up on a connection he made with pragmatism and radical empiricism. He does this in the context of shedding the "cult book" reputation and taking the whole philosophological thing more seriously. Your objections to James only tells me that you don't really care what Pirsig thinks and you don't care if the MOQ latches in the world of academic philosophy or not either. And there is never an actual reason for this. It seems to be nothing but a vague wish to undermine the whole idea and otherwise erase the comparisons made in those chapters on James. [Mary] Again you have misinterpreted me. I find your evaluation of me to be incorrect almost to the point of delusion. But that is a personal thing, and not all that relevant to the discussion. I care about Pirsig and I care about the MoQ. I would not be here otherwise. It is precisely because I care about both that I am interested in seeing the MoQ interpreted with completeness and accuracy. It appears to be the case that in order for the MoQ to "latch in the world of academic philosophy" certain fundamental aspects of it are being ignored or tweaked to the point that it ceases to be a meaningful philosophy and becomes just another footnote in the long march of the "American Philosophical Tradition". It is far from that and I happen to think that your limited interpretation is doing it a disservice. If you will indulge me for a moment, I will just say that my perception of what you have done to the MoQ amounts to a dismantling. It is placed in a subject-object context and has been diluted to the point that people like Mark are out here saying that they don't see any value to the 'patterns'. I cannot imagine that anything I have ever said could possibly be as disconcerting as that. Best, Mary Sorry Mary, but you have given me no reason to take you seriously. 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
