Jon
> First of all, I was giving some thought to Struan's old idea that, in his
> words, "The MOQ depends on Subject-Object Metaphysics for its veracity." He
> says that no serious philosophers take SOM seriously, and furthermore that
> the subject-object division is not the cornerstone of any serious philosophy.
3WD
Funny that this comes up just as I ran across a quote from one of the philosophers who's work Struan
has indicated he holds quite highly, Bertand Russell.
Russell is talking about James views on nonduality.
"The main purpose of this essay [ James' "Does Consciousness Exist?"] was to deny that the
subject-object relation is fundamental. It had, until then been taken for granted by philosophers
that there is a kind of occurrence called "knowing" in which on entity, the knower or subject, is
aware of another, the thing known or the object. The knower was reguarded as a mind or soul; the
object known might be a material object, an eternal essence, another mind, of in self-consciousness,
indentical with the knower. Almost everything in accepted philosophy [read Western]was bound up
with the dualism of subject and object. The distinction of mind and matter and the traditional
notion of "truth", all need to be radically reconsider if the distinction of subject and object is
not accepted as fundamental."
Short after this Russell adds:
"I am convinced that James was right on this matter,..."
"I had though otherwise until he persuaded me of the truth of his doctrine."
So Russell was,"convinced that James was right ...to deny that the subject-object relation is
fundamental" and because " Almost everything in accepted philosophy [read Western] was [and
arguably still is] bound up with the dualism of subject and object...all [these Western
philosophies] need to be radically reconsider[ed] if the distinction of subject and object is not .. fundamental."
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.
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. Both the Pokee
and Poker, the Subject and the Object, are locked in a shitty experience. Struan may be right,
Lila may just be philosophical toilet paper , but if it helps clean up the mess does it really matter?
3WD
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 - 16:00:45 BST