Hi Ham, Good to hear from you. To start, i jumped into this thread in the middle, as you, so I will have to review it from its inception to see what is meant by anti-realism.
In a post to Marsha I explained that I have no anxiety of a dichotomy since I see it as a useful way of presenting sensibility. This idea of Cartesian Anxiety seems to be a projection, and unecessarily creates something which, as you say "is a non-starter". AsI stated earlier, I do not know much about it except a few articles that I read on the web. My intent was to evaluate whether the classification of reality into a subject-object metaphysics is the most useful view. I am using SOM in the sense of the distinction between "I" and "Other". I am not sure if this is the "correct" way of interpreting SOM, and, as I say, I am here to learn what others think. It would seem that the "self" and "other" is a useful concept in terms of Essentialism, and I have no problem with it being used as you describe your ontology. However, perhaps this is one area that we come at reality from different perspectives. I see the self and other as being useful as a quick way of assessing the environment, but perhaps not as the primary form of awareness. We have gone back and forth on this in the past, and I do not want to open up, or cover old ground, since perhaps my understanding has changed since then. So, I will keep it brief. If we look at human development, there is an initial phase in early childhood where the child cannot conceptualize the split between itself and other. The conception that its mother is not an extension of itself results (in part) in the "terrible twos". It is an area for anxiety for the child, which it then gets used to and moves forward in society. The question I have is: is it necessary to completely abandon the idea that the environment (as seen through the senses) is perhaps an extension of self? It would seem that in the process of completely objectivising the outside as we do, that something is lost. Towards the end of ZMM speaks of this as Phaedrus wanders aimlessly through his life, having lost much of the comfortable meaning he had until then (which can be termed a "breakdown" without any of the negative connotation), he sees with disgust all the buildings that have been created which he considers devoid of Quality. In many ways he is advocating a partial return to Eden, or childhood wonder as it were. All in my humble opinion, of course. Cheers, Mark On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings, Mark [Steven quoted] -- > > > On Thursday, by way of clarifying something you said to Steve, you wrote: > >> My previous presentation was just an exploration of SOM, on >> metaphysical terms. To say that someone is an SOMer would mean >> to me that such a person exists within the SOM form of reality. >> You are right that this is probably true, but it is not because of the >> grammar they use, it is because of the way they see reality. So, >> again, my examples were directed towards why people exist in the >> SOM form of reality. It is because they see their words and concepts >> as something which are distinct from themselves. >> >> I am open to any criticism on this as it helps me learn. > > > I have always been impressed with your willingness to keep an open mind, > Mark. If the truth be told, we are all in "a learning process" as we > journey through life, and what shapes our reality is not so much what others > say about it as how we relate to experience. > > Simplification is often the best approach to resolving confusion, and I > would suggest that the term "Cartesian anxiety" be dismissed as a > non-starter. Bernstein's proposal that we go beyond the dichotomies of > objectivism/relativism to develop a new "practical discourse" for academia > has no dialectical foundation. Practical discourse, as the author explains > it, means that "...we dedicate ourselves to the practical task of furthering > the type of solidarity, participation, and mutual recognition that is > founded in dialogical communities." The idea is simply unfeasible. > > Existence IS a relational system, and the world we live in IS "the SOM form > of reality". Any "anxiety" that arises from our participation in a > subject/object world is either psychotic in nature or the frustration of > those who cannot accept existence as the relational mode of Absolute > Reality. > > In my opinion, words and language are no more than "expressions" of what we > experience, while experience itself is the product of our value-sensibility. > Neither of these humanly generated "patterns" defines ultimate Truth nor the > Essence from which existence is derived. > > I think Steve had it right when he said: "We have good reason to think that > when our beliefs about something change, it isn't the 'something' that > changes (and no good reason to doubt that) in lots of ordinary situations. > Where I think SOM comes in is when we use the concepts of subjects and > objects as the _basis_ for a systematic approach to thinking--for > metaphysics." > >> An SOMer is not simply a person who is prone to say things like, >> "reality is composed of subjects and objects" but a person who lives the >> consequences of that belief in certain ways which "Cartesian Anxiety" >> helps explicate. For them, certain "philosophical problems" are >> problems. But if a person who says, "reality is composed of subjects >> and objects" and doesn't display this anxiety, then perhaps this person >> has simply made the usual practical inference (evolved the usual static >> pattern) that almost all babies eventually do labeled "object permanence" >> rather than made a claim about what is _ really_going on in the >> metaphysical sense of "really"--the One True Way the universe itself >> demands we describe it. > > > I haven't been following this discussion, so I'm not sure which of you said > this; but I think it's a valid summation of the SOM concept--with or without > the "anxiety" factor. > > Also, I'm puzzled by what either of you means by "anti-realism". Is this > intended to be a pejorative reference to Idealism? > > Essentially speaking (again), > 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
