[MD] Mystics and Brains

[David M]

Hi DMB

DMB:Huh? I think you have confused my position with some kind of 
romanticised
> version of SOM.

DM: Romanticism challenged SOM long before Pirsig, especially Hegel, 
Schelling, Coleridge.
Heidegger and WIttgenstein are arguably romantics too. So you may not want 
to be so
classified, but I see that as your loss.

DMB: I mean, your description (below) seems only to add feelings
> and emotions to sensory data.

DM: Only? Seems crucial to me. I mean what are these other problems
with SOM that you think are more important?

DM: This is just the traditional notion of
> subjective experience. The Romantics thought it was important and the
> positivists thought is was misleading, but they both recognised it as
> experience.

DM: And MOQ shows you why you should not dismiss certain aspects of 
experience
because it is all real.

DMB: I mean, it seems like a mistake to interpret the MOQ as
> Romanticism because it merely emphasises the underdog within a SOM
> framework.

DM: I clearly see Pirsig in the context of Romanticism, do you really
know that much about Romanticism DMB to judge? Surely MOQ
is all about changing how we judge those aspects of experience that
SOM calls subjects & objects. MOQ does not change experience,
only the way we value it! If MOQ is an advance on Romanticism, the
advance is surely that is does not undervalue SQ which perhaps
Romanticism does. If you are going to to reply by making claims about
some great difference between MOQ and Romanticism, can I have
some specific examples for a change. I suspect your views above only
reflect your ignorance about Romanticism which covers a vast number of
different thinkers that are not easily categorised by simple dichotomies.