hey, donny, you say:
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.
lithien:
doesn't that remind you of the impeachment proceedings? it's the same
thing. people are trying to define terms and the other side refuses to
abide by that definition. they just ignore it and give it their own
interpretation.
i think you are right on!
Lithien
~*~all paths lead to the inevitable conclusion that logic fails
miserably when confronted with the mystery of existence~*~
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald T Palmgren <lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Friday, December 18, 1998 5:52 PM
Subject: MD 4 responces
>
>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
>
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