[MD] Food for Thought

[David M]

Hi Case

Of course there is a philosophy dedicated to describing
experience it is called phenomenology. A recent book on Heidegger & 
Wittgenstein
says that Heidegger undertakes a description of phenomena that
teases out how the noumenal aspect of things is 'indirectly' experience as
an aspect of the phenomenal. How else did we ever come up
with the need for this distinction? It is called Expressing the World
by Anthony Rudd, I strongly recommend it.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Food for Thought


> dmb says:
> The MOQ is "in essence wholly subjective"!? Okay, now I'm starting to 
> think
> that you have not read Pirsig's books. In Lila you will find him referring
> to the subjective self as completely ridiculous, as a fictional entity.
> Likewise, William James (in his Essays on Radical Empiricism) humorously
> claims that the Kantian self built by philosophers is made of an essence
> called "breath". Using medical terms, he says this "breath" is the sort 
> that
>
> comes out of one's nose. He's saying the subjective self is a bunch of hot
> air. See, by rejecting the assumptions of SOM as a starting point, both 
> the
> subjective self and the objective TiTs are already taken out of the
> equation. Or rather, their primary metaphysical status is taken away and
> they are reconcieved as secondary, as assumptions rather that the "real"
> starting points of experience. But seriously, how can you have read Pirsig
> and still say the MOQ is wholly subjective? Is that some kind of joke? Are
> you drunk?
>
> [Case]
> While I may or may not understand Pirsig, you certainly do not understand
> James. Here is the passage you have miss read as being "humorous".
>