LS Re: Explain the subject-object metaphysics


Theo Schramm (theoschramm@hotmail.com)
Mon, 25 May 1998 08:59:12 +0100


Greetings,

Once again the, 'us and them,' attitude is seeping into the fabric of
our work from a couple of directions and it reflects badly upon us. I
hope we can conduct an intelligent debate without reducing ourselves to
calling others monkeys. It can only damage us, especially if posted on
the website for all to see. WE are not enlightened and THEY are not
unenlightened. WE/THEY = ME/NOT ME. Enlightened/unenlightened = A OR
NOT A. Let us not go any further down that road, it leads to ruin.

Hugo, a timely and helpful post. The pluralism of the pragmatists and
modern theologians can be seen in opposition to exclusivists (we have
the only truth) and inclusivists (we have the truth and you have bits of
it). The pluralist recognises his or her own limitations and GENUINELY
seeks a lasting truth which encompasses as much as possible from
wherever it may come. I suggest that we need to be pluralist in this
sense, (Veritati omnia consentiunt), otherwise we are damned by our own
philosophy.

One thing Hugo. Are you agreeing with Diana's definition and simply
adding that the SO is unexamined? This seems to be your position in your
last post. Or are you saying something more? I was going to question
your previous statement that;

HUGO
"Yes, this is what I have in mind, speaking for myself. I want to
distinguish sharply between '_the_ subject-object split', which is in
principle one, but which can take so many forms as ground for '_some_
subject-object metaphysics'. To repeat my previous mail, a
subject-object metaphysics is a metaphysics or worldview, which has not
inquired into the subject-object split upon which it rests. It is a
subject-object metaphysics by way of its unquestioned subject-object
'nature', and not by way of its seeing itself as a subject-object
metaphysics;"

The problem I see here is that you have not said what SOM is beyond the
fact that it 'is' and that it is unquestioned within the systems that
rest upon it. This may well be true but saying, "it is," begs the
question, "what is it that is?" It is in the resolution of that question
that your definition will reside if it is to be substantially different
to Diana's.

IMPORTANT
Idealism (good definition Donny - saved me from having to post mine)
does not necessarily involve a subject/object split. Is it SOM? and if
so, why? This is an essential question that needs answering before (if)
we accept Diana's definition. We have to understand that with this
definition, materialism, idealism and lots of other ism's are not
NECESSARILY SOM. I am more than happy with this but I sense others
aren't. We need to debate this before the definition is agreed upon
otherwise we will end up with a definition a number of us don't accept.

Diana, do you want materialism and idealism to be included in the term
SOM and if so how do they fit into your definition? You said in your
last posting that scientists subscribe to SOM and yet most scientists do
not subscribe (knowingly or unknowingly) to SOM as you define it. There
is a tension here which leads me to think that Hugo's view (sorry if I
misrepresent you) in which SOM is fundamental to Western philosophy and
science needs to be looked at more carefully by the group. He seems to
be saying something substantially more radical and widespread than this
definition allows and I get the impression from your comments upon
scientists that you agree with him.

Theo

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST