Hi Struan, Bodvar, LilaQs,
Struan, it's good to see you back in the discussion ...
STRUAN on 7 Jan in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0042.html
>Jonathan, it was a pleasure to read your last posting as it neatly fits
>in with the prevalent
>philosophical view of mind and body. That you see this as being allied
>to a MoQ gives weight to my contention that there are few serious
>philosophers who hold an SOM position. ...
Yes, but I would add that there are very few serious philosophers who
have had any impact outside philosophical circles. The average academic
is almost totally ignorant of Kant, Spinoza, Hegel etc. let alone more
modern philosophers. I am just
as ignorant, despite my "Doctorate of Philosophy" (tho' I'm starting to
get good at faking;-). The majority of us non-philosophy academics
follow the SO approach without questioning its metaphysical basis.
STRUAN:-
<<<I do however disagree
with your definition of materialism and believe that it is this
simplistic notion that has got Pirsig into deep trouble on the SOM
question...A coherent materialist will not claim that "reality IS
material reality." ... When materialism is represented in its more
sophisticated and less 'popular' form, the problems you point to do not
require resolution. >>>
I take the point, but why concentrate on the "less popular", the
philosophers version of materialism, when the more popular naive version
is what dominates everyday thinking? Your "correct" materialism is
virtually irrelevant.
MARY's post just came in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0063.html ) which
supports my contention:-
<<<There's a good explanation of materialist current and historical
thinking at:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html
>From reading this, it seems that materialism is still very firmly in
the camp of physical objects. Everything is or will be explainable
by science, the only things that exist are matter, and that
consciousness is a byproduct of the brain's "visceral pulps and
fluids".>>>
Nevertheless, there are a few notable scientists (e.g. Poincare,
Einstein, Bohr to name a few) who have indeed questioned the
metaphysical underpinnings of their science.
BODVAR on 9th Jan in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0054.html
<<<How the ...should anyone think like that before Pirsig??? Einstein
did not know- or speak as a MOQian, yet he hints to something that
wants to escape intellect. However, in (his) SOM there is no such
possibility except appealing to "mystical" entities like intuition or
inspiration. Fair enough, but not very fertile>>>
Bodvar, you are surely wrong to think that Pirsig introduced a new way
of thinking. He looked to give credence to the entities popular science
buries under the carpet. It took people like Einstein to admit
the value of these buried treasures. Einstein didn't say that intuition
is mystical. He said it was mysterious. My understanding of Pirsig is
that he places intuition and inspiration completely within the realm of
empiricism by extending the realm of empiricism beyond the 5 senses.
JONATHAN on 7th Jan in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0041.html
> If ALL is based on matter, then mind is also based on matter. That's
why
> mind-matter sounds so much like SOM. MIND is the matter which
functions
> as SUBJECT, MATTER is the matter which functions as OBJECT.
BODVAR on 9th Jan in
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9901/0054.html
<<<I have done my best, but I fail to see your reasoning here. " If ALL
is based on matter, .....etc"????? How can that be derived from my
proposition? This is so enigmatic that I will await your explanation
before proceeding>>>
Bodvar, I never supported this "all matter" metaphysical view, nor
attributed it to you. Struan criticises it as a naively incorrect view
of materialism. Without sounding patronising can I ask you to carefully
re-read my posts and my forum essay before proceeding?
Jonathan
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 - 16:02:48 BST