> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Buchanan [SMTP:DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 12:10 PM
> To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
> Subject: MD X
>
> Just a few words about SOM as a philosophical target.
>
> In response to the idea that SOM is "no big deal" I had disagreed with
> Struan, saying...
> "I really don't see room for honest disagreement here. I think there is
> great level of certainty on some matters. The sky is blue, the Earth is
> round and Scientific materialism is the West's world-view."
>
> STRUAN and/or his 'alter ego,' one Theo Schramm responded with...
> Of course scientific materialism is the predominant world view in the
> West.
> I never claimed it
> wasn't, as any cursory glance at the archives will show. The problem is,
> DMB, that you don't
> understand coherent materialism so you invent your own simplistic,
> 'neo-Democritic,' version and
> call it SOM. Then you obliquely question my honesty by falsely equating
> the
> two and suggesting that
> I do the same. I do not. I never have. I never will and still I don't. So,
> I
> will restate the above
> sentence again just for you. Modern scientific materialism is ultimately
> concerned with relations,
> not with substance and certainly not with the chimera that constitutes a
> rift between ourselves and
> the cosmos. But enough, one could spend all day correcting your inventions
> and distortions so I will
> leave it there.
>
> DMB says
> OK, calm down. We're just talking here. There is no reason to get upset.
> In
> fact, I didn't mean to imply any dishonesty on your part. The phrase "no
> room for honest disagreement" simply conveys a level of certainty on the
> issue. But while we're on the topic, posting opinions that you don't
> really
> believe under a false name isn't quite honest. It IS interesting as an
> experiment, however, and I'm a little jealous that I didn't think of it
> too.
> Did I interact with your alter ego?
>
> More to the point, I'm not the only one who makes the connection between
> scientific materialism and SOM. Pirsig is all over that one. Maybe that's
> where the disagreement truely lies? In any case, to say that Scientific
> materialism is not concerned with substance seems plainly illogical to me.
> What's the difference between material and substance? And I thought it was
> metaphysics that was "ultimately concerned with relations"? But the point
> is, Pirsig describes the same problem using both terms. The flaw in our
> intellect, in our world-view is called SOM and amoral scientific
> objectivity. Its the same thing. Sure there are distinctions to be made,
> there are dissenters, people who've recognized the same issues. Its a rich
> and complex thing. But in the broad view, the only real difference between
> metaphysics and a world-view is the formality with which it is absorbed,
> the
> particular brand you buy. Even the idealists and romantics are stuck with
> reacting to the same deal, and I thinks it's plenty BIG.
>
> What does neo-Democritic mean?
>
> How did Wittgenstein end the Cartesian era?
>
> Didn't the Vienna Circle seek to create a meta-language free of
> subjectivity? It seems to me that the Linguistic philosophers were very
> much
> caught up in SOM, even if they never called it that.
>
> Looking forward to your polite and reasonable response.
>
> Thanks for your time. DMB
>
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST