Hi Jon and fellow MoQers
On 1 Jul 2000, at 0:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First of all, I was giving some thought to Struan's old idea that, in his
> words, "The MOQ depends on Subject-Object Metaphysics for its veracity." He
> says that no serious philosophers take SOM seriously, and furthermore that
> the subject-object division is not the cornerstone of any serious philosophy.
> I'm no expert, but I think he may be right.
>
A couple of questions:
1)
Jon referencing Struan
"The MOQ depends on Subject-Object Metaphysics for its veracity."
Please explain why. I am not aware of any metaphysics that depends on another
metaphysics for its veracity - MoQ is no exception. I have challenged Struan on this
in the
past and received no answer. No-one else (to my knowledge) appears to have even
challenged the statement.
The MoQ, as with other metaphysical positions is 'standalone'.
MoQ/Pirsig is not seeking to deny or disprove the existence of subjects and objects or
state
that there is a body of thought called "THE SUBJECT OBJECT METAPHYSICS". He refers
to __A__ subject object metaphysics, which is a completely different position. Struan
(using
the nom de plume of Theo Schramm) himself provided a good working definition of SOM
some time back:
Theo Schramm (AKA Struan Hellier) - Mon, 25 May 1998 23:01:22
" A subject object metaphysics is any one of a family of explanations of
reality which rest upon the tacit assumption that there are two separate
and irreducible fundamentals in the way we perceive the universe, namely
the experiencing subject and the experienced object. Although not
necessarily recognised by its proponents this 'A _OR_ NOT A' position
leads to an irreconcilable tension between subjective reality and
objective reality with each vying for dominance within the subject
object metaphysical system."
There are 13 posts from "Theo Schramm" (Struan) from the period 18/05/98 to 17/08/98
(I
can provide the dates if required) which are available in the archives at the MoQ
site. I
suggest that you read these posts (and the threads to which they belong) as they are
interesting and informative.
2)
JON:
> He says that no serious philosophers take SOM seriously, and furthermore that
> the subject-object division is not the cornerstone of any serious philosophy.
So what exactly is a serious philosophy and more to the point what is a serious
philosopher.
I know a number of philosophers most of whom are serious AND sincere in their beliefs.
The
problem is that none of them hold exactly the same views and some of them hold
completely contradictory views. Academia is therefore NOT the place to look to
exclusively if
you want a definitive view on what is and what is not serious.
Equally, I consider myself to be a serious philosopher as is Ant McWatt, Diana
McPartlin
Magnus Berg, Jonathan Marder etc.etc. and we all take a SO based M seriously. Struan
has never managed to discredit our position and it is unlikely that he will.
I think what Struan means is professional rather than serious which is a different
position -
all professionals have a position and reputation to maintain and do not willingly
thank others
for contradicting or disagreeing with them. But again, the positions of professional
philosophers differ and the above is still relevant. But let's be clear about this,
there are an
enormous number of serious and academically debated metaphysical positions. Some deny
the existence of subject and object, some deny one or the other. For example,
Eliminative
Materialism denies the existence of anything EXCEPT matter and Paul Churchland is
considered enough of a serious philosopher to be included on philosophy courses.
JON:
> I'm no expert, but I think he may be right.
I'm not an expert (or a professional, but I am serious) either and I think he's dead
wrong.
Horse
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
