DONNY DISAGREES W/ BODVAR, THEN AGREES W/ HIM, HELPS PLATT, AND THEN
THANKS JOHNATHAN.
Talking about "Mysticism," "idealsim," vocabulary and the nature of
argument and philosophy as fighting agsinst the bewitchment of words.
**********************************
---ONE---
BODVAR writes:
______________
Hi Kilian and Group. A warm welcome to all newcomers!
No, you are the least thick-headed person around, but it has eluded
a lot of people that "mysticism" is the legitimate child of
subject-object metaphysics. They believe they "reject" dualism or
whatever they call it by embracing new-age-like standpoints, but in
doing so they CEMENT it. And what is worse: they believe that the MOQ
is a new-age movement.
_____________
First of all, to say "mysticism is the child of SOM" makes no
logical sense. We agree, do we not, that "SOM" means: the knowing subject
and the known object are ontallogically seperate, irreducable entites,
and everything that really exists must be one or the other. That's what
most of us agreed on in the past. Now how exactly does that declaration
imply mysticism -- which as Pirsig defines it means something like: There
is a part of reality which is inherintly unknowable.
Second: Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, Vadanta and many othet Eastern
"philosophies" are mystical (as defined above) or at least have a mystical
componant. Are Buddhism, Taoism, etc. all examples of SOM (even though
they clearly don't fit the definition of SOM given above)?
Third: Mysticism cannot be reduced to New Age because the New Age
movement is a (bad) mix of appropreated Eastern thought, psudo-science,
Western (mostly Christian) theism, and Pop Psychology that arose in the
last 15-or-so years. Mystical philosophies -- on the other hand -- have
been around for literally thousands of years.
75% of the stuff we end up squabling about around here is arguing
over vocabulary and semantics... and there's no substance in that! If you
don't like the words "mysticism" or "Idealism" then fine; don't use them.
That's okay... just understand what others mean by those words so that
when they come up you can react to the ideas rather than reacting (just)
to the vocabulary employed.
This problem arises because many of us are throwing around words
w/o clearly defining there terms. Bodvar, I can give you spicific
definitions for "SOM" (one that seems perfectly in line w/ Pirsig's use of
the words), "idealism" or "mysticism" (and show you that that use of the
later two has plenty of president -- I'm not the only one in the world
using them that way), and, thirdly, show you how the definitions of
mysticism or idealism do not match the terme of SOM, and are not implyed
by SOM. (I've done this w/ "Idealism" and it's definition even out-right
contradicts "SOM" -- and you chose not to chalange my logic, but ignore
it.) You can't just use "SOM" and "New Age" as labels to hang on
whatever you don't like. (There's a lot of new Age that doesn't fit the
definition of SOM -- isn't SOM. It's still of low Intellectual Quality,
IMO, but it's not necessarily SOM.)
I'm picking on Bodvar, but a lot of people are doing this:
Imposing what they want to mean on other's words, rather than
undersatnding what those others mean by those terms. Let's not argue
about semantics and vocabulary, please! We're having an e-discussion, not
publishing a manafesto. (Well, except Fintan, but that's his business.
;-) )
Bodvar later wrote:
________________
Yes, from day one I have said that everything is mind (mysticism) or
nothing is.
________________
Okay, Bo; that's your definition of "mysticism": 'Everything is
mind.' When you use the word we will assume that's what you mean. But for
the love of intellectual (and social) quality, please recognise that's not
what many of us mean when we use that word (including Pirsig). Otherwise
the discusion goes nowhere. If you're unsure what someone means by a term
they are using... Hey, take a hint from Ken... Ask them!
--TWO--
I agree w/ Bodvar's proposed "rules of thumb" about keeping the
snow navigate-able. Personally, I have of late been trying to wait 48
hours between posting. Lots of times somebody else will say something you
were going to if you give 'em a little time and then you don't have to. I
have not been able to read half the posts I get because of the speed they
come in and (I use a public mainframe) I can only save 100 or so messages,
so I have to read right away or deleat. I'm sorry for all the gems I'm
missing seeing -- really I am! -- but I have no choice.
--THREE--
I lost the original message (see above), but I think it was PLATT
who was talking to someone (?) and looked to me as far as "A Breaf History
of Idealism." ;-)
Rather than that, what I'd like to do is just point out that there
are a lot of different TYPES of "Idealisms."
Platt named Berkely who was the begining of an Anglo-Western type
of Idealism that held that the "outside world" is really just the inside
world (rocks don't exist; only the perceptions/ideas of rocks). (IMHO,
Berkley's system isn't SOM [see definition above], but is none-the-less of
low intelectual quality: inconsistant and not-useful.)
Then there is German Idealism which is a bit different (because,
for one thing, they didn't start w/ Decartes mind-body paradigme). This is
basically Kant through Hegel. They were all trying to say that the
"inside" and "outside" world are both reducable to some other (sometimes
transendint, sometimes Mystical) primary thing... but they disagree about
what that primary thing was (for Kant it was transendent [not
spacio-temporal] and mystic [not knowable]; for Hegel it was temporal and
knowable.)
And then there's a bag of Eastern philosophies that are generaly
held to be "Idealisms:" Vedanta Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen...
The one (maybe only) thing all of these have in common is that
they all hold that the knowing subject and the known object are merely two
aspects of the same thing. You and that tree are linked together
ontalogically. As the Hindu *Upanishads* put it: *Tat Twam Assi*, That
Thou Art.
So, okay, there's what I -- and I guess your typical
philosolologist -- mean by "Idealism." Some people on the Squad are using
it diferently (Bo, for example).
--FOUR--
JOHNATHAN, you're absolutly right that asking what would (or
what things possibly COULD) count as proof that Quality=Reality, is a
great start. Cool! Rather than trying to answer "What is Quality, really?"
or "What's really real?" maybe we should start by asking questions -about-
those questions, huh?
How do those questions arise in the real world (or do they)?
What's that like asking?
What could count as an answer to that?
Why are they even questionable and not screamingly obvious? (I
mean, don't we all know what "quality" means? And Pirsig himself said that
every sane person knows what's real because the definition of madness is
"losing touch w/ reality." So why all the hub-bub?)
It's one thing to see what's going on w/in the teratory of the MOQ
(and not too difficult, IMO), but it's something else to start looking
over the fence. (The former is explication; the latter is exploration.)
You really made my day by "getting" the 1st phil/2nd
philosophy distinction I've been harping on. I wasn't sure I was ever
going to be clear enough to get it across. You've restored a bit of my
faith in my ability to be inteligable. Thank you. (If you haven't seen
it, my Web Essay on our Forum is about this same topic.)
Thanks, also, to you for the many high quality posts you've
made...
and to everyone whose so contributed to the LS's collective
knowledge, entertainment and pleasure! Whatever else is going on here,
first and foremost we all seem to be having fun and spending
(experiencing?) "quality time."
(And, agian, apologies for all those whose posts I've had to
deleat w/ reading or only skimming over. I know; I feel guilty. But it's
ether that or quit the squad.)
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:45 BST