Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:49:39 +0100
Hi Diana,
> Platt Holden wrote:
> > Since the term subject-object thinking has stirred up such a storm of
> > discussion, perhaps it's better to take it out of the FAQ and simply
say
> > "thinking."
> How about "reason".
> "Intellectual value is reason and that which propagates reason"
> I find "Thinking" too vague. It could be interpreted as anything that
> goes on at the level of the brain and that isn't right.
> "Reason" is only a tiny step away from "thought" but it implies more of
> a value judgement. For example you can say the MoQ is reason and the
> Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM) is reason, but the MoQ is more reasoned
> than the SOM. I guess you could also say, "the MoQ is better thought
> than the SOM" but then there's no indication of what makes it better.
I like "reason." I've tried to think of other words but none seems to fit
any better. Reason implies initital premises or assumptions and that's
where the "better" comes in. To quote a passage from Lila, p.99 in my
hardcover edition: "The Metaphysics of Quality (says) that values of art
and morality and even religious mysticism are verifiable, and in the past
have been excluded for metaphysical reasons, not empirical reasons. They
have been excluded because of the metaphysical assumption that all the
universe is composed of subjects and objects and anything that can't be
classified as a subject or object isn't real. There is no empirical
evidence for this assumption at all. It is just an assumption."
Platt
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST