[MD] Tit's

[david buchanan]

Krimel said to dmb:
Frankly I think Pirsig would be shocked to hear the MoQ described as dualistic. In ZMM he rants on and on about the evils of dualism and early on declares: "The One in India has got to be the same as the One in Greece. If it's not, you've got two. The only disagreements among the monists concern the attributes of the One, not the One itself."

dmb quotes Pirsig from the Baggini interview:
"...the classification of metaphysics into monism, dualism and pluralism, seems to me to be an arbitrary classification where none is needed. The Metaphysics of Quality is all three: Quality is the monism. Static quality and Dynamic Quality are the dualism, and the four levels of static quality contain a pluralism of things. ...I think it is arbitrary the way a count of the length of sentences in a metaphysics would be arbitrary. It doesn't add anything to the truth or falsehood of the metaphysics being described. It is a form of philosophology, if I may use a favorite word, a classification of philosophy rather than philosophy itself."

Krimel said:
The argument over materialism versus idealism is at its root an argument about which vocabulary to apply in describing the Tao. 

dmb quotes Pirsig from the same interview:
The “Quality” of the Metaphysics of Quality is not a basic substance, or anything like it. The Buddhists call it “nothingness” precisely to avoid that kind of intellectual characterization. Once you start to define Quality as a basic substance you are off on a completely different path from the MOQ.

Krimel said:
...I believe that one of the few points that Hacker, Dennett and Searle agree upon was that neuroscience research labs would all benefit from having a philosopher on board.

dmb says:
Yea, and for some of the same reasons Dreyfus thinks that artificial intelligence research labs would benefit from having a Heideggerian on board. As I keep saying, science and the philosophy of science are two different things.

Krimel said:
The data is not in dispute? Then what the fuck are you talking about? 

dmb says:
As I keep saying, this debate is in the realm of Metaphysics, epistemology, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of perception. 

Krimel continued:
This exchange started when I was attempting to show how specific data regarding the formation of pre-intellectual awareness takes place. I was attempting to show how unconscious and autonomic emotional functions influence how we perceive the world. I was trying to look at what the "undisputed" scientific data can tell us about how we construct our ideas, concepts and understanding into a sense of unity out of the multimodal and disparate data that enters our awareness.

dmb says:
And right from the start I've tried to explain the mistaken assumptions behind that data and have complained about the reductionist interpretations of that data. As Gav tried to explain, pre-intellectual awareness is already unified and it is the differentiations come later. The mistaken assumptions, in this case, has led you to get things exactly backwards right from the start.  

Krimel said:
I was commenting on Ron realization that the notion of illusion is...

dmb says:
You lost me there. To comment on this I'd have to backtrack to see what Ron was saying. I do recall you made some comments on the "Kulpian illusion" or something like that but it was never clear to me what that was supposed to mean. 

Krimel said:
Airbrushed out of the picture? A blindspot? Far be it from me to question your formidable command of the literature but I see no shortage of work being done on mental illness or any of those topics. You are reading a book on the subject now. Were there no other volumes on the topic on the shelf you pulled it from? Pirsig's collected works are centered around mental breakdowns, his own and Lila's. The last millennium ended in the "Decade of the Brain".

dmb says:
I realize that neuroscience and psychology exist but the SOM assumptions behind science preclude certain interpretations such things like mysticism and the interpretation of dreams is usually not taken seriously. I believe you have mocked Freud and Jung and mysticism on several occasions. If I were to make a case that such things have been  marginalized by scientific materialism, you would be exhibit "A". You're a living stereotype, a classic example, a real live case of the strawman you deny. You are adorable and hilarious.

Krimel said:
My efforts have been to apply the MoQ to the data and to show specifically how understanding one aids in understanding the other. If you believe that the vocabulary of transduction of energy, neural pathways, and brain centers is too materialistic then since the data are not in dispute perhaps you could restate the data using an idealistic vocabulary. Instead you misrepresent and misunderstand what I have said and talk about what a clever boy you are.

dmb says:
Idealism and materialism are both within the assumptions of SOM. Switching vocabularies only moves the emphasis from one side of that dualism to the other. Somehow you've managed to adopt both sides. You're a materialist and a solipsist at the same time, maybe the world's first ever. Congratulations!

Krimel said:
So come on Dave, what are the "right" assumptions? What conclusions should we draw from the actual data?

dmb says:
Reality is phenomenal, not physical or psychical, and that's what makes science work. It is empirical and that's a good thing but it is not empirical enough. 

Krimel said:
Since you know so much and have already judged the metaphysical underpinning why waste your time?

dmb says:
There is no contradiction between understanding some things and wanting to learn more. The more I learn, the more I want to learn. Very few things bring me that kind of happiness and I'm glad there's no end of things to study. If I had 10 lives, there still wouldn't be enough time.

Krimel said:
...William James and Wilhelm Wundt ... probably figured that getting a handle on stuff like that might inform metaphysics rather continuing along the path you and Ham have chosen which is letting metaphysical dogma dictate your conclusions.

dmb says:
Wow. The irony is overwhelming. Yes, James's radical empiricism was all about getting rid of metaphysical dogma, in particular the SOM dogma that you've been clinging to so tenaciously. Like Pirsig, he explains how subjects and objects are ideas derived from experience not the other way around. He traded that dualism in for another one. Yep, you guessed it. He uses the static-dynamic distinction too. 

Krimel said:
Oh, No! "Naïve Scientism"! I must add that to religious fanatic, scientific materialist, SOMist and existentialist. I'm becoming something of a jack of all trades. Perhaps instead of casting about for labels your time might be better spent addressing the issues.

dmb says:
I've done nothing but address the issues and there is nothing inherently wrong with labels so long as they're accurate. Its perfectly fair and probably helpful to characterize the positions you're taking in this conversation. You, on the hand, are merely calling me childish names. What are you like, 60-something? Jeez. Grow up, Poopy-pants. Diaperist!

Krimel said:
As though science and philosophy of science have no points of contact.

dmb says:
Of course they make contact. Obviously, the latter is ABOUT the former. The theory is about the practice, if you will. By this analogy, I keep comparing one theory to another and you come back with details about practice under ONE of those theories. This begs the question entirely. That's why there's hardly a point of contact between us in this conversation. I'm talking about the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions of SOM compared to the MOQ's, about the reasons for SOM's demise. I'm talking about TITS and why there aren't any in the MOQ. This is not an attack on science. I love science. I love empirical evidence, clarity and precision. But that is all quite beside the point. 

By the way, Plato and Phaedrus are the romantics while Aristotle and the narrator are the classicists. But I'll remind you that Aristotle is an asshole and the narrator is what literary types call "unreliable". Pirsig himself says the narrator is a charmer, a bullshitter, a spewer of plattitudes. Be careful about whose side you're on. In any case, I don't really mind the romantic label. I do like to think about the big picture and a lot of detail can be quite tedious. But I think you can't dismiss the fact that metaphysics is just one of those big-picture kind of things. The scope of these issues is not determined by what I prefer. That's just the nature of the topic. 









_________________________________________________________________
Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia Contest
http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergames?ocid=TXT_TAGHM