Andre said to Steve:
I see lots of static stuff being generated here with the aim of making "life"
nice and predictable, virtually shutting out any possibility of Dynamic
insights/change to ever be recognized let alone acted upon. This is SOM all the
way it seems to me...
Steve replied to Andre:
You are using SOM as a catch-all criticism here (as is too often done in this
forum) of what I'm saying sounding stale to you. It's fine if you think it is
static, but to say that it is SOM is just false. I have not invoked a subject
object metaphysical view. I have explained what is left of "determinism" once
we SUBTRACT the metaphysical baggage.
dmb says:
If you don't think you've invoked SOM during this debate, Steve, then you're
not listening to yourself and you don't understand the nature of your own
expert "evidence", such as the quotes from Harris and Parfit for example. I'm
not saying they're stupid but they both are looking at the issue from the
perspective of scientific objectivity, particularly physicalist reductionism.
For Harris, moral problems are essentially neurological problems and Parfit's
thought experiment is predicated on rewinding the laws of causality. Invoking
them is invoking SOM, whether you realize it or not. Even if we generously
assume that you don't really endorse their metaphysical assumptions, that you
were just using them to make a point, it is still - at best - very confusing.
It makes no sense to try to get at the MOQ by way of SOM thinkers.
I'd also point out that you're dragging SOM into these debates in other ways as
well, not the least of which is your insistence that operative terms like "free
will" are somehow superglued to the assumptions of SOM. As a result, you keep
adding these SOM assumptions and to my position even though there was never any
good reason to add them in the first and I've protested against this unwanted
baggage many times.
Charging someone with lapsing back into SOM is very often just a cheap trick.
Anyone who uses a pronoun like "I" could be accused of endorsing the Cartesian
self and anyone who names any object could be accused of endorsing an objective
reality. But that's just a cheap trick. Conventional terms like that are way
too convenient to give up and if we had to make metaphysical qualifications
about everything we say all the time, there wouldn't be any time left to say
anything. Unless there is a real reason to believe otherwise, no MOQers should
be saddled with SOM simply for using the english language.
But in your case, Steve, there are real reasons for the charge, some of which I
just named.
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
