[MD] subject / object logic

Sun Aug 12 09:27:53 PDT 2007

Thanks Dave.

It might interest you to know classes haven't even begun but, after having 
read only the introductions to the books assigned for Hildebrand's class on 
pragmatism, I can already see that the MOQ fits into classical American 
philosophy, that it fits very neatly into mainstream Pragmatism. I was 
surprized to learn that radical empiricism, which I thought was unique to 
James and seperate from pragmatism, is a central plank in classical 
pragmatism, a defining feature shared more or less by all the big hitters; 
Dewey, Peirce, Santyana, Mead and the rest. This fact alone has me totally 
thrilled. But its all a match. Click, click, click. Everything is going to 
snap into place, no instructions required. I'm totally psyched.  You and the 
gang will be reading all about it here, whether you like it or not. And 
David Hildebrand is a very righteous dude. Lucky, lucky me. Seriously.

I'm also signed up for a class on 19th century European philosophy and that 
means Hegel. Not only was pragmatism born, at least in part, as a response 
to the St. Louis Hegelians, I'll be looking for the story behind Pirsig's 
comment about the MOQ's "Quality" NOT being some Hegalian absolute. I'd like 
to be able to say exactly what the differences are.

But, I have to say, I'm not too sure you can help when I hit a wall, 
especially on those occasions when you are the wall. I still have several 
bumps on my head. Ouch.

dmb

>From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
>Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:23:26 +0100
>
>Hi DMB
>
>Great post, spot on, these are good reasons to reject
>Bodvar's suggestions, although they are suggestions worthy of
>consideration, and finding the reaons why they should be rejected
>improves our understanding of MOQ, so thanks to Bodvar too.
>Looks to me that your understanding of where MOQ can be placed
>in the tradition is vastly improving, glad to see that education is
>putting extra meat on your already substantial views. I look
>forward to seeing just how far you can advance with your
>studies and writing. I also hope that with people like
>Hildebrand looking past Rorty and Putnam and getting back
>to Dewey and James the time is ripe in the US for some new
>and fruitful thinking. Here's to hope. If you ever hit the wall,
>try me. Have you come across Joseph Margolis by the way?
>See wiki worth a quick look.
>
>regards
>David M
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 12:21 AM
>Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
>
>
> > Ron Kulp said:
> > I've been emersing myself in Bodvar's work on the SOL concept and I have
> > to
> > say I'm with him. ...To percieve and understand any part of reality is 
>to
> > percieve it as subject and object. Even our sensual recognition is based
> > in
> > symbol comprehension. we are emersed in languge but also much deeper 
>than
> > imagined, language is an out growth of comprehension, language
> > communicates
> > this understanding.  I believe Subject Object perception is base 
>awareness
> > for all living organisms, I believe instinct is built on it.
> >
> > dmb says:
> > Above all, the thing that keeps me from going along with Bodvar on this
> > idea
> > is that it somehow puts the MOQ over and above all other intellectual
> > systems, as if it were unique in offering an alternative to the
> > assumptions
> > of SOM. But now I'm pretty well convinced that Pirsig has plenty of
> > company
> > in the philosophical world. Most recently, I learned that rejecting SOM 
>is
> > one of the central features of classical Pragmatism. I was afraid that
> > William James was the only one, but apparently the desire to find
> > alternatives to SOM was something they all had in common. Last semester 
>I
> > discovered that European thinkers like Bergson, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger
> > and
> > others were working on alternatives. I'd guess that all the process
> > philosophers reject SOM as well. Its not hard to see why a person would
> > think that SOM is built right into us, but this is just the power of
> > language and culture which gives us "common sense". And common sense is
> > just
> > the mythology that still works, that people still believe in without
> > question. But we can trace the history of ideas and see that this view 
>was
> > invented at a certain point in time. (We can't say it happened at 8:45am
> > on
> > a Tuesday, but you know what I mean.) In the case of SOM, many point 
>their
> > fingers at Descrates or at the Brit Empiricists. Pirsig and Heidegger 
>take
> > it way back to Aristotle and Plato. There are many way to trace its
> > development but the point is simply that these assumptions are not
> > inherent
> > in the intellect. The origins and limits of that worldview have been
> > widely
> > explored with the intellect. Saying that intellect and SOM are the same 
>is
> > like saying religion and christianity are the same or that science is
> > identical to Newtonian physics. In each case, the equation denies the 
>fact
> > that alternatives are already in circulation. These kinds of equations
> > would
> > unforgivably narrow the concepts of intellect, religion and science.
> >
> > Ron said:
> > I think  ...Bo then brings up the question shouldn't there be another
> > category within the intellectual level perhaps a subject object
> > intellectual
> > and a Quality intellectual (for lack of any proper descriptive term) a
> > transcendent intellectual level one in which the awareness of the 
>subject
> > object perception is taken into account when intellectualizing.
> >
> > dmb says:
> > Developmental psychologist would certainly agree that there are higher
> > stages in cognitive function, that basic rationality is not the end of 
>the
> > road when it comes to intellectual development. And it seems to me that
> > one
> > would have to achieved a certain level to even begin to analyze and
> > compare
> > metaphysical systems, but it seems to me that the difference between SOM
> > and
> > the MOQ can be seen most plainly in their content. I mean, the MOQ isn't 
>a
> > deeper, more profound version of SOM. The kind of mind that can grapple
> > with
> > philosophical issues can grapple with Pirsig's ideas just as well. I'd
> > certainly agree that there is a mystical element in the MOQ and that
> > mysticism can't be fully appreciated through intellect alone (what can,
> > really?), but even that is presented in a philosophical form. Besides,
> > pragmatism is an option for those who get spooked by mysticism. Pirsig 
>is
> > certainly one of them and they've been bashing SOM since the 1870s.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > See what you're getting into.before you go there
> > 
>http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507
> >
> >
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

_________________________________________________________________
See what you’re getting into…before you go there 
http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507