From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 09:22:24 BST
Hi Anthony,
> Firstly, if the idea of the universe as a mechanical device came before
> the Reformation then the beginnings of the particular Enlightenment
> thought that Barfield and myself are concerned with, did actually precede
> the Reformation (despite what first year student books/Homer Simpson might
> say).
Well, as you put it yourself, "I do think you should have explained yourself
better in the first place".
> Moreover, the precise dates of these two periods are not that critical in
> the context of the millennia that Barfield is discussing consciousness.
> The fact of the matter is that SOM did become dominant in Western thought
> at some point in the last few hundred years
So.... when exactly are you claiming they became dominant? with the
Enlightenment (as understood by Homer Simpson - 'the last few hundred
years')? with the Reformation (500 years)? with the twelfth century
renaissance (800 years)? How about with Plato?
> and when it did, values were metaphysically removed from the inorganic and
> biological realms. As I noted, this put the ontological status of
> communion bread as either being some sort of Dynamic Quality (analogous to
> this mysterious 'substance' of Sam's beneath the accidents) or being
> simply symbolic. The first viewpoint has been taken by the "Vatican
> Authorities" and the second by the "Protestant" Christian tradition. As I
> also noted previously, both traditions are wrong in this regard.
It amazes me how you can pontificate on the basis of ignorance. For example:
> Well, if this 'substance' you introduced is indeed Aristotle's idea of
> substance then, according to the MOQ, it doesn't exist. The static value
> patterns are enough by themselves to generate bread which, in all its
> forms, is a manifestation of Quality.
Why should someone with a PhD in philosophy need to have Aristotle's
metaphysics explained to him? Did you study anyone other than Pirsig,
Northrop and (some of) the Buddhists? The anachronism involved in your
analysis is bizarre.
On top of which, who is claiming that transubstantiation is true? This all
came about because you claimed it as an example of something where science
and (contemporary) theism are in conflict, presumably because you trusted
Pirsig to have got it right in Lila. You haven't managed to make that
assertion stick - largely because, as you have demonstrated so clearly, you
don't know what you're talking about in this arena. So are you now willing
to concede Scott's point or are you still wanting to preserve your pride and
dig yourself in deeper?
> As Wittgenstein said to Erin's grandfather: "If you don't know what the
> fuck you're talking about, stop talking and ask, then listen..." :-)
Quite so. If only you'd listen to your own advice.
<snip the more childish stuff>
> Sam Norton continued April 25th:
>
> This puts me in mind of some of Wittgenstein's comments regarding JG
> Frazer.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Sam, it would be nice to have the text and page number so this section can
> be referred to in a larger context. Call me cynical but I don't trust
> secondary sources unless they've been quoted by Robert Pirsig or Mark
> Heyman.
Ah yes, this is the 'hide behind academic authority' defence (although, I'm
not sure that your latter sentence there is grammatically coherent). I
thought they were pretty plain, but as you insist: I took them from
Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Occasions", chapter 7, ed Klagge and Nordmann.
They are out of context - but then, the document as a whole is a collection
of fragmented comments, so I don't think my use of them is misleading. I was
trying to point out that you were operating (are operating) from an
incredibly narrow perspective on life ("What a narrow spiritual life on
Frazer's part! As a result: how impossible it was for him to conceive of a
life different from that of the England of
his time!") - one which is in fact entirely SOM based. How ironic.
> Next you're going to tell me that Wittgenstein didn't say the following to
> Erin's grandfather: "If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about,
> stop talking and ask, then listen." If Wittgenstein or other talented
> philosophers were too polite to say this to the various half-wits they
> came across then maybe that's been part of the problem all along.
As I said above, if only you could listen to the advice yourself. Why don't
you - just as a thought experiment - take the risk of considering that there
are areas of philosophy where you know less than other people involved in
this forum. Would it really threaten your newly qualified status so much?
You never know, it's possible that you might learn something.
'What makes a subject hard to understand - if it's something significant and
important - is not that before you understand it you need to be specially
trained in abstruse matters, but the contrast between understanding the
subject and what most people want to see. Because of this the very things
which are most obvious may become the hardest of all to understand. What has
to be overcome is a difficulty having to do with the will, rather than with
the intellect.'
Wittgenstein, 1931
'The edifice of your pride has to be dismantled. And that is terribly hard
work.'
Wittgenstein, 1937
Good luck.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 09:45:05 BST