Yes, the only light at the end of the tunnel is that we may finally be seeing the death throws of DMB's anti-personnel-rhetoric - with luck, as you say. Ian
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, David Morey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all > > I'd just like to warn anyone who can think for themselves to ignore DMB's > silly and dogmatic SOM red flag waving, the world of SOM criticism is > clearly much wider than DMB's rather limited reading list implies, and this > reactionary scare mongering will see the MOQ disappear into the margins and > be forgotten I fear. If anyone wants to follow a genuinely open exploration > of non-dualist thinking in a broader and better connected tradition I > recommend Speculative Realism, shame really, the MOQ deserves better. > > All the best, good luck, you will need it. > David Morey > > david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Ian said to All: >>The idea of "I" and "Consciousness" as entities in the sense of objective >>existence in an ontology, is clearly misguided for any of us who already >>reject SOMism. >> >>dmb says: >>Sadly, it seems that some people don't really understand what it means to >>reject SOM. David Morey's recent quest for realism and Marsha's long-held >>anti-intellectualism, for example, are different ways to misunderstand the >>subject-object problem and its solution. That's why I posted this thing about >>rejecting the Cartesian thinker. It's not enough to simply say that the idea >>is misguided, of course. They both SAY they're opposed and yet they both >>demonstrate all kinds of misconceptions, with David trying to sneak >>objectivity back into the picture and Marsha constantly confusing the cure >>(MOQ) with the disease (SOM). >> >>There's a Wikipedia page on this problem, where it says "Robert M. Pirsig's >>philosophy of the Metaphysics of Quality is largely concerned with the >>subject–object problem." >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem >> >>It's not the best source, that's for sure. But it would be a good place to >>start for those who are generally disoriented. Check it out. >> >> >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:01 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >>> > >>> > I think, therefore I am? The most famous certainty isn't at all certain. >>> > "The absurdity of this assertion becomes clearer once we switch subjects. >>> > We’ve all used the common expression “It’s raining.” But would we say, >>> > “It is raining, therefore it is”? What is raining? Do we suppose there is >>> > some entity corresponding to the word “it” which is doing the raining? >>> > No, of course not!" -- Steven Hagen in "Ergo Sum?" >>> > http://dharmafield.org/resources/texts/ergo-sum/ >>> > >>> > But I think Hagen is borrowing this criticism from Nietzsche. As Wiki >>> > says... >>> > >>> > "That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from >>> > it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more >>> > than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in >>> > that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity >>> > as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more >>> > appropriate phrase would be "it thinks." In other words the "I" in "I >>> > think" could be similar to the "It" in "It is raining." " >>> > >>> > William James also attacks this Cartesian self as a non-entity... >>> > >>> > "I believe that consciousness, when once it has evaporated to this estate >>> > of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of disappearing altogether. It is >>> > the name of a nonentity, and has no right to a place among first >>> > principles. Those who still cling to it are clinging to a mere echo, the >>> > faint rumor left behind by the disappearing soul upon the air of >>> > philosophy. During the past year, I have read a number of articles whose >>> > authors seemed just on the point of abandoning the notion of >>> > consciousness, and substituting for it that of an absolute experience not >>> > due to two factors. But they were not quite radical enough, not daring >>> > enough in their negations. For twenty years past I have mistrusted >>> > conscousness as an entity: for seven or eight years past I have suggested >>> > its non-existence to my students, and tried to give them its pragmatic >>> > equivalent in realities of experience. It seems to me that the hour is >>> > ripe for it to be openly and universally discarded. >>> > >>> > To deny plumply that consciousness exists seems so absurd on the face of >>> > it — for undeniably thoughts do exist — that I fear some readers will >>> > follow me no farther. Let me then immediately explain that I mean only to >>> > deny that the word stands for an entity, but to insist most emphatically >>> > that it does stand for a function. There is, I mean, no aboriginal stuff >>> > or quality of being, contrasted with that of which material objects are >>> > made, out of which our thoughts of them are made; but there is a function >>> > in experience which thoughts perform, and for the performance of which >>> > this quality of being is invoked. That function is knowing. Consciousness >>> > is supposed necessary to explain the fact that things not only are, but >>> > get reported, are known. Whoever blots out the notion of consciousness >>> > from his list of first principles must still provide in some way for that >>> > function's being carried on." >>> > >>> > Three ways of saying the same thing. This is how Pirsig treats the >>> > subject of SOM too. It's just a figure of speech, he says. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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
