hello everyone,
I agree to most things said this month but I would like to add some details.
Talking of SOM I not only think of positivism (what I see as the major cause
of the mind-matter split) but also of logic. The basic rules of logic were
thought out by Aristotelis (how do you spell his name in english?) as an
attack against Heraclites. It is Aristotelis who in turn is attacked by
Pheadrus at the end of ZMM. I won't point out the argumentation against
these rules (an other time) but it is very simular to Pirsigs attack on SOM
since these rules are the fundament of SOM.
Althought no serious thinker will adhere to SOM (including logic and
positivism !!!) completely nowadays, every thinker in the european tradition
somewhere depends on logics according Aristotelis. There are many
philosophers who were so close to the consept of MOQ but always somehow SOM
sneaked in through the backdoor. For instance both psychoanalysis and the
Frankfurter schule had levels and dynamic components but stuck because it
seemed to dangerous to leave SOM.
The major problem, as I see it, is that most philosophers and scientists but
also the 'common' man knows that SOM does only work under very specific
conditions but they are not aware of it. They should be aware when they use
a SOM argumentation. A secund problem is that most people who are not an
academic philosopher know very few or even no alternatif argumentations.
To end with I think the 'common' people know very well that mind can
influence matter. Look at the fast growing New-Age-thing and see even
'common' housewives believing something of it this you can't say that the
'common' man thinks S/O.
greetings,
Jaap
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST