Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Wed, 6 May 1998 18:05:46 +0100
Hi Horse and welcome back
Thank you for an interesting and important post. However, I wouldn't
say that SOM is synonymous with dualism. At some point or another, I
think every world view is a dualism.
Monisms usually use one kind of stuff to explain two other kinds
of stuffs, and if it's a SOM monism, the two other stuffs are subjects
and objects. The main (and only?) difference between SOM monisms and
SOM dualisms is that SOM monisms have a connection between subjects
and objects whereas SOM dualisms have not. I'm not really sure if
this connection is important or not. As long as it doesn't lead to
contradictions within the metaphysics, I'm ok with a non connection.
You can also see all dualisms as monisms. The monism being ultimate
reality. The two stuffs of the dualism is just the first division of
ultimate reality. In that case, the MoQ is also a dualism, or a monism,
depending on how you look at it.
Am I confused or is dualism a bad way to categorize metaphysics?
I don't think the *number* of stuffs used to explain the world is important.
It is *which* stuffs and *which* divisions used that are of importance.
Horse wrote:
> I'm sure that there are a number of other questions that could be
> posed, but the main idea is to examine how the pre-RoR beliefs
> (dualistic or otherwise) changed with the RoR - the Mythos to Logos
> transition. Some obviously made it through and are still part of
> western belief - Chaos/Order, Good/Evil etc. New dualisms arose,
> Subject/Object, Mind Matter etc.
> Which of these are part of the post-RoR metaphysics which we are
> calling SOM.
> When we refer to the SOM are we talking of purely either/or dualisms.
> If the dualistic split is in terms of A *AND* NOT A then does it
> belong in the SOM paradigm.
I think the dynamic/static split of the MoQ is an either/or split.
Actually, I'm not sure about the value of such a categorization
either.
> Another question that desperately needs answering is that of the
> relevance of SOM in 20th century thought. This is not in terms
> of the beliefs of the general public, but as part of the edifice
> which we are supposed to be challenging - the
> Scientific/Philosophical establishment, because if it is the case
> that they have already made the break from SOM then who and what the
> hell are we supposed to be challenging?
A very central question. Everyone seems to agree that SOM is full
of platypi, but nobody subscribes to it. It's like chasing a soap
in a bathtub. Every time you try to catch a SOMite with a platypus,
he slips away to another corner of the tub and says, "but that doesn't
apply to my view". The problem is that nobody seems to see the tub.
I still think the best definition of what SOM is about, is what Doug said
24/1 -98. He said:
>SOM seeks TRUTH.
>
>MoQ seeks GOOD!
>
>In SOM GOOD is subordinate to TRUTH.
>
>In MoQ TRUTH is subordinate to GOOD.
SOMites believe in the paradice :) land of "Utopia Objectiva". SOM thinks
that "the truth is out there" just waiting to be discovered, and when the
truth is established, everything can be judged good or bad according to it.
Magnus
-- "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good" N. Peart - Rush-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:43:14 CEST