Greetings,
I am pleased to find Walter has summed up what I consider to be the main bones of
contention and
have consigned my long responses to Platt and Roger to the waste basket because they
didn't address
the central point that Walter reiterates. That being said, I can't let Platt's tone go
unchallenged
and, in particular, this paragraph which permeates his whole attitude in his previous
response:
PLATT:
>It�s been hard to get the idea of �real understanding� through to Struan,
>probably because of his being insulated in an academic circle of so-called
>modern philosophers who, with the exception of Ken Wilber, dismiss mystic
>experience with a smug smile that hides an abiding fear of being hooted out
>of the club of entrenched scientific orthodoxy.
Firstly, insulated is what I am not. I continually, and on a day to day basis, have to
debate,
discuss and elaborate upon my ideas face to face with some of the brightest minds in
this country.
Do you Platt? Or do you sit 'insulated' behind your computer and occasional carefully
selected
books? That is an accusation of gross impertinence. Then you follow this with the
tired old, and
frankly ludicrous, conspiracy theory of academia, perpetuated only by those who have
no knowledge
whatsoever about academia, or, alternatively, those who have knowledge but failed in
the field and
drifted away with a bone to pick. Go into any decent university library, look under
mysticism and
you will find dozens, if not hundreds of positive books about mysticism and many by
eminent
philosophers in the field. Look at 'Mysticism and Logic' by the thorough-going
empiricist Bertrand
Russell, one of my philosophical heroes. Total respect for mysticism there and this is
one example
amongst many. I myself have affirmed the value of mysticism many times on this forum.
As for
entrenched scientific orthodoxy, I genuinely cannot believe that you have read a
single scientific
article this century if you think that there is such a thing. The latter half of this
century has
seen such a radical departure from the old science and such a variety of spectacular
and weird
theories that this attitude beggars belief.
But, this infuriating narrow-mindedness aside, I turn back to Walter.
WALTER:
>One explanation is that "experience" is not restricted to a mind and that's
>also in my line of thinking. But, even if we open our minds and think
>of electrons having experiences as well, the fact remains that this
>presupposes the electron as a static pattern of values that does the
>experiencing.
Precisely. This is no explanation as I pointed out previously. I am an emergentist and
I do accept
that the term 'experience' can (with appropriate caveats) be usefully applied to
phenomena other
than the mind. Experience (at whatever level) presupposes an experiencer (at whatever
level) and
vice-versa. One cannot exist temporally before the other. It could not be plainer than
that. (as
Platt would say)
WALTER:
>This issue is being answered by Platt, Roger and David B. by regarding
>"primary experience" as "an event that occurs before the senses are
>activated". I hope everyone agrees with me that, though you can agree
>with this or not, this AT LEAST draws questions about the terminology used.
>Why call it "experience", for it is bound to be the source of much
>confusion?
>Why not call it "primary events" or just "events", because I don't even see
>why the
>"primary" most precede the words (or is it that "primary experience" is
>before subject/object and "secondary experience" after?)
>
>Anyway, even though I like the idea of the events 'being' Reality, this
>still presupposes static patterns of value that are IN the event to
>constitute
>it. Can there be an event without static patterns?
Again I concur. Look again; "an event that occurs before the senses are activated".
Not, 'before the
senses,' notice, but 'before the senses are activated.' The senses are there first!
Presupposed, as
Walter goes on to say. Dress this up as SOM logic and sweep it under the carpet if you
so wish dear
reader.
WALTER:
>Of course this is all logic and you can always tackle the use of that,
>(like Platt did in his respons to Struan), though it doesn't satisfy me
>much.
>But I want to be sure. Does everyone think that the answer to the above
>can only be found in leaving logic? Do we (like in Platt's quote) have
>to embrace a different concept of 'understanding' from that or rational
>explanation to progress beyond?
Absolutely. For Platt you can't 'really understand' it by thought or logic. It doesn't
make sense
logically. Many people here spend half their time trying to show how logical and
coherent the MoQ is
then, as soon as they are challenged, they resort to the defence that trying to make
any sense of it
whatsoever is SOM logic, not applicable and beside the point. Well, dear reader, if
you are happy to
accept an illogical, thoughtless, unsupported (in any traditional sense) doctrine that
is fine by
me. I am not. People have been telling the world that God/Ultimate
Reality/Quality/Allah is beyond
human comprehension for as long as there has been thought. Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus,
Jesus, The
original Buddha, Aquinas, my mum, my cat, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Ayer etc, etc.
But, you
know, I thought Pirsig claimed to have bridged this gap. I thought his metaphysics was
reckoned to
be empirical, logical, useful and good and I find it cowardly when people slough me
off with the
news that I can't subject it to logic or rationality.
If the MoQ can't be subjected to logical or rational inquiry, then can we all shut up
and go home
because there is literally nothing reasonable left to say about it. If it can be
subjected to logic
and rational inquiry, then when I make a logical and rational point is it too much to
expect that
this might be addressed directly rather than the standard, "Yeah, but that is SOM
logic there
Struan, and as an unbeliever you could not possibly understand this far greater
reality we have, but
which we can't explain."
ROGER:
No, Struan, your "mind" is just another derivation of experience, of reality
I hope you see the point now Roger. The experience of what???? Yes my 'mind' is a
derivation of
experience in the sense that I called it a mind after I experienced, but you still
can't have an
experience without an experiencer. Yes they are inter-dependant. Yes they arise
together and, yes,
�This paper and the seeing of it are two names for one indivisible fact.� How you can
possibly claim
that from this it can be deduced that Quality is primary is beyond me. It cannot be.
Whether
analysed as a relation of ideas or a matter of fact you have absolutely no stated
reason to
postulate this ad hoc hypothesis.
Once again, one cannot appeal to James for veracity. He always postulated a mind first
and I
challenge anyone to show me that he did not.
I really didn't need to post this as Walter's restatement of my point is the essential
one. Unless
one departs from logic and rationality, it is impossible to postulate an experience
without also,
and simultaneously, postulating an experiencer. Is the MoQ irrational, or can somebody
logically put
Quality before the chicken and the egg without recourse to the theological position
which has
permeated western philosophy for the greater part of 4000 years? If Quality is simply
another name
for God, than let us at least be honest about it.
----------------------------------------
RICK:
Struan, great stuff. You present a challenge in this forum like few others
do. I was wondering if you would take a few minutes to explain how it can
be logical to posulate mind without matter, as I can not seem to get such a
notion to make even the least bit of sense (it keeps coming out like the
most simplistic idealism imaginable, a position I can't imagine anyone---
except maybe a few stoners--- would seriously hold).
I am not for one second trying to say that it is empirically sound to postulate mind
without matter.
My point was a logical one and as you allow for it on a logical basis (you can see how
the position
COULD be held, even though it is grossly simplistic) you have answered your own
question.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
