[MD] Tit's

[gav]

bravo dave.  unflappable!



--- On Wed, 6/8/08, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Received: Wednesday, 6 August, 2008, 2:07 AM
> Krimel said to dmb:
> So you do deny the existence of an external world and you
> believe the MoQ is dualistic? Just trying to clarify.
> 
> dmb says:
> The MOQ's dualism is a distinction between Dynamic
> Quality and static quality. It says DQ is the primary
> empirical reality, a phenomenal reality. The "external
> world" denied by this would be Kant's things in
> themselves, the objective reality, material reality or
> whatever one wishes to call the supposed cause of the
> phenomena. In other words, the MOQ does not deny the
> experience from which we derive ideas about the external
> world, it simply denies that the external world is anything
> more than an idea. 
> 
> Think of it like this. Kant's categories of the mind
> were thought to be what gives shape to the things in
> themselves, the filter through which experience was
> interpreted. You could sayt that since the linguistic turn
> these categories have been replaced by language. This is
> what shapes our understanding, rather than some innate
> feature of the mind. 
> 
> Krimel said:
> The Dali Lama sent monks for testing at a neuroscience lab
> at the University of Wisconsin and delivered an address to
> the 2006 annual meeting of the Society for Neurosciences. 
> ...The Transcendental Meditation folks have sponsored and
> promoted research for. But the Dalai Lama and the Maharishi
> are too reductionist for you to dirty your hands with?
> 
> dmb says:
> Yea, I know. David Lynch is convinced that transcendental
> meditation has huge benefits for creativity as well as
> mental health. I have a four and a half hour program on the
> spiritual and scientific explorations of human experience
> from Stanford. His holiness, the Dalai Lama is the star of
> this program. John Horgan's book, "rational
> mysticism" discusses the scientific investigations into
> this as well. What makes you think that I don't know
> about this stuff? I live in this world too. See, I keep
> telling you that the data, the scientific facts are not in
> dispute. It is inherently philosophical to compare SOM with
> the MOQ. Talking about the status of the external world will
> not be helped by making reference to this facts. Roughly
> speaking, I'm talking metaphysics and you keep
> responding with physics. You think you're talking over
> my head but its more like you don't even understand what
> the topic is. As consequence, we're just talking past
> each other. 
> 
> Krimel said:
> Dream studies have been neglected? The first president of
> the APA, G. Stanley Hall wrote a book on dreams so did
> Freud, Jung and dozens of other Psychologists. There are
> sleep laboratories the world over studying the physiology of
> sleeping and dreaming. ...There is even a rock band named
> R.E.M. you might remember their hit, "Losin' My
> Religion". An acronym derived from the scientific study
> of the dream state has become part of the modern mythos.
> 
> dmb says:
> If I had said there were no dream studies, you would have a
> good point. But I didn't so you don't. In fact, the
> head of the religious studies department at my school is a
> Jungian. I'll be taking the psychology of religion from
> her starting a week from today. I studied some Freud and
> such for another class a year ago. And of course my interest
> in mythology (Joe Campbell is a Jungian of sorts) is related
> to dreams as well. I'm currently reading a thing called
> "the Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of
> Civilization". Its all about the impact of madness,
> hallucinations, prophecies and dreams in the ancient world
> and the ways in which this feature of our culture has been
> air-brushed out of the picture. Likewise, Pirsig says we
> have a blindspot here. That's what I mean by neglect,
> not total ignorance. By the way, I've seen REM in
> concert and have loved them for about 25 years. Even my 8
> year old son likes that band. Again, I know this stuff cause
> I live in this world too. Its sa
>  fe to assume that I do not live in a cave or under a rug.
> 
> Krimel said:
> ...I would suggest that whatever your plan for more
> inclusive science "should" be might proceed a bit
> better if you actually knew what was going on.
> 
> dmb says:
> Your continued efforts to discuss metaphysics by citing
> scientific studies can only be the result in a profound
> misconception as to the topic under discussion. Again, the
> data is not in dispute. The MOQ does nothing to alter the
> raw data. Its about the assumptions behind that data and the
> conclusions drawn from it. Its not like I have my head in
> the sand, you know. Its not like I'm hiding from the
> facts. In fact, I'm already signed up to study
> psychology and the social sciences this semester. The
> chairman of the grad school was a psychotherapist until she
> found it lacking and became a philosopher instead. I studied
> Freud, Piaget, and Lacan (among others) with her. She has
> said very flattering things (to other students) about the
> term paper I wrote for her class. It served as a writing
> sample in my application package too. My point? People who
> are in a much better position to judge what I'm saying
> think I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. And
> based on the case you've
>   been making, I'd say that YOU have no idea what's
> going on and think you're subscribing to a rather naive
> sort of scientism. 
> 
> Again, science is one thing and the philosophy of science
> is another. You'll never keep up unless and until you
> switch to the actual topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on
> Windows Live.
> http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
> 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/


      Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. www.yahoo7.com.au/search