Hi Peter, 3WD, Horse, Gina, and all others
3WD:
Struan strongest objections (as I understand them) are to Pirsig calling the
dualism of subject and
object " a metaphysics" or after Strawson that since no serious philosopher
has previously called or
supported a position called [Subject-Object-Metaphysics] it is a "strawman"
created by Pirsig to
support the veracity of the MoQ. I and many others have argued with Struan,
to no effect, using
references such as this that if this split is so "fundemental" to almost
everything accepted by
Western philosophy that it was and is indeed a "defacto" metaphysical base.
JON:
Yeah, I think Struan's main complain was simply that Pirsig added the word
"metaphysics" when referring to the SO dualism. He agreed, I think, that the
dualism exists and is a valuable thinking tool, but denied it was an
important part of most philosophies. But your quotes from Russell are noted
and they seem to prove Struan wrong.
3WD:
So while none deny the split , and few deny the problems the split creates,
all seem to find that
resolving the split is a little like poking shit up a wildcat's ass with a
toothpick.
JON:
>From Lila, page 177 (paperback): "If the world consists only of patterns of
mind and patterns of matter, what is the relationship between the two? If you
read the hundreds of volumes of philosophy available on this matter you may
conclude that nobody knows--or at least knows well enough to convince
everybody else."
HORSE:
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.
JON:
Only Struan can answer that one. I wasn't agreeing with Struan about the MOQ
depending on SOM for its veracity. I think Pirsig is referring to
Subject-Object-Thinking in general when he uses the term SOM, and Struan's
suggestion that Pirsig should drop the word "metaphysics" when referring to
the SO dualism may be a good suggestion.
HORSE:
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.
JON:
I agree that Struan is probably referring to Academia and so-called
"professional" philosophers. Pirsig would probably call these people
philosophologists.
PETER:
As one who has to utilise the "Sci-method" in my research into human
perception, I have to agree with much of what you say. The thinking that
"science" is a self-contained explanatory system capable of extension to
encompass the whole of "reality" does indeed lurk underneath 20th century
thinking, generally.
JON:
I'm happy that at least one person agrees with me; I was beginning to feel
like a madman <g>.
Actually, the possible negative impact of objective-thinking on society was
intended to be the salient point of my post. I wish more people would comment
on this aspect of my post rather than the Struan aspect.
PETER:
Oddly, though, I'm not as pessimistic as you, because I don't necessarily
agree that the ultimate goal of science is actually to stamp out nasty
illusions of a subjective nature. I think it will probably be the other way
round, in that science can only disprove itself as a comprehensive
explanation of the universe-we-are-in. I think that those scientists who
believe otherwise are blinkered, and therefore are likely to be less good
scientists.
JON:
Hopefully you're right. I tend to think the problem isn't with scientists or
the people who really understand science, the problem is with the people who
don't understand science yet have faith in its declarations anyway
(declarations such as there are no morals).
The problem seems obvious to me. Science doesn't value morals. People value
science as the source of "real" truth, and science tells them that morality
doesn't exist in reality. It's just a fantasy, like God. Therefore, slowly
but surely, because they have faith in science, people place less and less
value on morality (and God). Can anyone deny that this is happening?
PETER:
In the end, perhaps science will 'disappear' into the general fabric of our
thinking, and 'objective science' will become as old-fashioned as Animism
may seem to us now.
The bottom line is that Spock is wrong, and logic isn't the best way to
think about the universe (and recent research into decision-making process
evaluation seems to bear this out).
So it's just an immature phase we're going through.
JON:
Funny you should mention Animism. I've been looking into it recently. I found
definitions of Animism in the Harper-Collins Philosophy dictionary, and this
is the one that stuck out for me: "In metaphysics, the view that existence
(being, the universe) as a whole is alive, or that there is a pulsating
life-force or will that is intimately connected with and propelling its
processes and direction."
I tend to think all of reality is connected somehow. What is this "pulsating
life-force" that keeps everything going? Quality, perhaps? Perhaps the MOQ
has more in common with Animism than initially meets the eye. Pantheism as
well.
The question is, how will this "immature phase" ultimately effect us? Will we
learn and grow from it, or will it wreck us? Many children go through
immature phases. Some turn out OK and some end up in jail or dead.
Jon
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
