STRUAN, MARY, and anyone interested in the current debate over
MATERIALISM.
Struan's quotes from his first posting on January 10, 1999.
A.F. Chalmers "In relativity theory, interpeted realistically,
properties such as mass and volume no longer exist, but become relations
between objects and a reference frame and can be changed without any
physical interaction."
Feyerabend "The new conceptual theory...does not just deny the existence
of classical states of affairs, it does not even permit us to formulate
statements
expressing such states of affairs. The positivists scheme of progress
breaks down."
Struan has used quotes to support his position, but the views expressed
by Chalmers and Feyerabend only undermine materialism. How can Chalmers
say "mass and volume no longer exist" and still be called a materialist?
How can Feyerabend claim a "new conceptual theory" that denies "the
existence of classical states of affairs" and still be held up as a
materialist? To quote this in defence of materialism is intellectual
suicide. I can only conclude that Struan was drunk when he wrote it. :
- )
Actually Struan's quotes are only more evidence that SOM is "breaking
down" in the most advanced realms of physics. Part of the trouble with
SOM is that it fails at those advanced levels. In fact, physicists (My
father-in-law is one) are hard pressed to explain their findings outside
the highly specialized language of mathematics. When they attempt to
explain it in ordinary words, they often sound like mystics or sometimes
even poets. As Feyerabend says, the latest findings "don't even permit
us to formulate statements" about what was formerly thought of as the
classical states of affairs. Even the hard sciences are giving up on
materialism! Pirsig's third work, the paper "SODV" addresses this very
issue. And from Lila (HB Bantam p.382)...
"The physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the
universe. Rta is both. This was exactly what the MOQ was claiming. It
was not a new idea. It was the oldest idea known to man"
Mary suggested that we employ other writers who seem to be thinking
along the same lines as Pirsig. I agree with her. Its a good idea to
bring things like that into the debate. And if its "the oldest idea
known to man", then there must be plenty of writings from history that
resemble the MOQ. IMO it is mysticism that has always carried the MOQ
torch. From what I've encountered in contemporary thought, the breakdown
of SOM is easier to see than anything that resembles Pirsig's MOQ. In
other words, lots of people have bumbed into the SOM problem but have
not necessarily come to the MOQ as a solution to that problem.
I believe i've detected just the opposite in our discussions here. It
seems to me that some of the posts reflect a profound misunderstanding
of the SOM problem. Further, this lack of appreciation for the problem
makes comprehension of the MOQ solution nearly impossible. I think its
why we see people adding and subtracting levels from the MOQ and
perpetually clinging to "scientific" explainations. It seems to me that
most of the disagreements and confusion is due to those who have not
read Zen and the Art or who have otherwise disregarded it. That the
reason I hope the rules will be amended to require reading of both books
before joining. We're supposed to discuss Pirsig's idea, not someone's
opinion of half of his idea.
David B.
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 - 16:02:49 BST