[MD] Crazy talk

[ian glendinning]

Mike, Laird, et al
Thanks for drawing our attention to that Mike.

Your summary
"The subject/object distinction is a poor metaphysical master. But
let's not forget that it can be an excellent servant."

Seems pretty good to me.

The question of balance I always wrestle with is recognising the
limits to situations where it is that "excellent servant". As someone
who started from a very objective scientific / technological position
I tend to emphasise the exceptional situations, and remind the SOMists
theirs is only a tool accepted by cultural convention (and past
success) not something fundamental, so DMB will accuse me of wanting
to have my cake and eat it.

Whereas the metaphor I would always choose is not "throwing out" baby
with the bathwater, as you alluded.

Apologies to Laird if that was missed - I've said before, contrary to
complaints about too much opinionated chatter - that we need more "me
too" posts.

Ian


On 1/3/07, Michael Hamilton <thethemichael at gmail.com> wrote:
> He everyone,
>
> On 1/2/07, Laird said something quite good, which seems to have gone unremarked:
> > Thinking that the MoQ is seriously opposed to SOM is a very dangerous
> > road. The MoQ encompasses and tames SOM, and to some extent relies upon
> > the fruits of SOM to provide strength to its argument. SOM provides an
> > awful lot to our intellect and to trash it would be a catastrophic loss.
> > An MoQ directly opposed to SOM would be anti-rational, anti-logical,
> > self-destructive and doomed from the get-go. SOM just has a big ego and
> > the MoQ knocks it down a peg or two. :)
>
> Damn straight! In the initial rush of excitement after reading Pirsig,
> I had a tendency to get big-headed, thinking I'd been let in on the
> true reality and that from here on in I'd be so much more enlightened
> all these dolts living in their world of subjects and objects. As
> Laird says: dangerous road.
>
> Throwing out subjects and objects is crazy talk, and not very useful.
> It's tied up my brains a fair few times. The great thing about the MOQ
> is that it doesn't _start_ with subjects and objects - it starts with
> experience. So in a way, MOQ _is_ opposed to SOM, i.e. a metaphysics
> which starts with subjects and objects. But the MOQ doesn't ban us
> from talking about or thinking about subjects and objects.
>
> The MOQ is a philosophy for life, rather than a philosophy for knifed,
> dissected, dead matter. That's something I'd been looking for before
> picking up ZMM. The danger that I succumbed to after reading Pirsig
> was deluding myself that it's always wrong to think in terms of
> subjects and objects. It's a delusion every bit as guilt-inducing as
> believing in Original Sin.
>
> The subject/object distinction is a poor metaphysical master. But
> let's not forget that it can be an excellent servant.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
> 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/
>