Greetings,
Marco, you start off by reiterating my point.
MARCO:
"I don't think we can interchange mind/matter and subject/object so easily."
Then you state my point for me again.
MARCO:
"For what I explained in a->d points we can't interchange mind/matter and subject/object, so every
conclusion must be reviewed.
Then you conclude by making the same point. It being the one I made and the point which was central
to my posting and precisely my objection to Pirsig's reasoning.
MARCO:
"Subject exists only if Object exists. Mind and matter can exist separately."
This was why I wrote, "There is no logical contradiction in postulating mind without matter. The
strong 'a priori' argument that objects rely upon subjects has vanished completely."
I'm not sure what we are arguing about here. Your interpretation in points A to D is fine by me,
(although I suspect others will worry that it maintains a strong mind/matter dualism), but I'm sure
we both realise that this wasn't what Pirsig meant. What am I missing?
-------------------------------------------
Rick. Hang on a minute. You write as if I have agreed the substitution can be made. I haven't and it
can't.
Phenomena (for Kant) means, 'a thing in so far as it is an object of our sensible intuition,'
(Kant - Critique of Pure Reason - London - MacMillan - 1963 - pg268-269) Noumena means, 'a thing in
so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition,' (Ibid). Notice that both phenomena and
noumena refer to objects. If you want to call this a 'one sort of object/another sort of object'
metaphysics then carry on. You do not, however, have any justification for seeing it as a
subject/object metaphysics and so cannot meaningfully substitute one of the terms for, 'subject.'
To take your first example;
RICK:
"Because something is not located in the [noumenal] does not mean that it has to be located in [the
phenomenal]."
Translation;
"Because something is not located in the [thing in so far as it is not an object of our sensible
intuition] does not mean that it has to be located in [a thing in so far as it is an object of our
sensible intuition]."
Forgive me, but I have not faintest idea what that means or what point you are trying to make, so
when you write;
RICK:
"You've already agreed to the refutation of your own criticism.... if "subject/object" is replaced
"phenomenal/noumenal" . . . . etc"
I must protest that I have agreed to no such thing. You have twisted what I, Pirsig and Kant wrote
by changing the words and the meaning completely. Let me be clear. I have never agreed and do not
agree that subject and object can be replaced by noumenal and phenomenal any more than I would agree
that ramekin and rector could be replaced by pink and albatross.
Perhaps if you could show me how any of the following make any sense whatsoever under Kant's
definitions, or, otherwise, supply me with your definitions of phenomanal and noumenal so that we
can bridge the gap between you thinking this makes good sense and me thinking it is all nonsense.
-------------
"But it can be derived from the relationship of [a thing in so far as it is an object of our
sensible intuition] and [a thing in so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition] with
each other"
-------------
"Quality occurs at the point at which [a thing in so far as it is an object of our sensible
intuition] and [a thing in so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition] meet"
-------------
"And because without [the thing in so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition] there
can be no [thing in so far as it is an object of our sensible intuition], quality is the event at
which awareness of both [a thing in so far as it is an object of our sensible intuition] and [a
thing in so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition] is made possible."
-------------
"If the question is can the thing in so far as it is an object of our sensible intuition function
without perception of the thing in so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition..."
-------------
Do you see my objection now? I can't possibly see a rational argument in, or put up a rational
argument against this because it appears to me to be gobbledegook.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:43 BST