[MD] What is SOM?

[Krimel]

Krimel said:
no self respecting Christian, Taoist or MoQer should be willing to give
credence to the idea that they are espousing a dualism or a plurality.

dmb says:
The original MOQer says otherwise. Last time you made this point I quoted
Pirsig saying so from the Baggini interview. It was only a week or two ago.
How could you forget so soon?

[Krimel]
I read the Baggini interview and did not think it worthy of a comment. As I
pointed out both Christian and Taoist monisms give account of the existence
of duality and plurality. Frankly I thought the Baggini interview was
embarrassing for Pirsig. An interview conducted by e-mail and still such
weak answers... 

What Pirsig denies in the interview is that Quality is a basic "substance"
what you and I are talking about is the ontological ground of being. This
seems a sufficiently vague formulation to include even the undefined
Quality.

Since Pirsig seems only to communicate in the dead of night through third
parties my conversations are not with him. On the whole I think his
instincts for what is at the heart of things is impeccable but his execution
leaves much to be desired. Since he claims that the MoQ has a life of its
own and in fact refers to it in the third person what I personally have to
say succeeds or fails on its own merit. Your attempts to appeal to authority
do not address the issue. 

dmb says:
Again, the original MOQer says otherwise. In the MOQ, where experience IS
reality, epistemology replaces ontology. Or, if you prefer, there is no
ontology except for experience. You could say there are no essences or
things-in-themselves. This is follows from radical empiricism, where
ontological categories such as subjects and objects are seen as reified
concepts, as abstractions mistakenly given concrete existence. There are
many, many ways to say it but sticking with the MOQ's empiricism and LILA's
art gallery example, Pirsig says,...

[Krimel]
Again your only point here is an appeal to authority. I can hear the
explosion in you head from here. But the truth is, "Bob, says" is a lousy
argument. Are you seriously claiming that you have not confused ontology
with epistemology but rather claim there is no ontology at all? Is this you
just being witty or are you saying literally there is nothing.

Even Ham knows that experience is a personal thing. On this particular point
the MoQ is entirely in the realm of subjective. When each of us has an
experience that experience is primary and we as individuals infer subjects
and objects from it. We distinguish self from other. Claiming that reality
IS experience the way you do confuses the reality of each individual with
the reality from which each of us emerges, inorganically, biologically,
socially and intellectually. This is not metaphysics it is psychology. 

[dmb]
I'll spare myself the task of looking it up and typing in another quote
but...

[Krimel]
A classic example of the romantic Dave. Unable to dirty yourself with the
marvels of a technology that is beyond you, you take pride in typing what
you could easily cut and paste. 

[dmb]
I'll remind you that at the end of ZAMM, at what I take to be the
philosophical climax of the book Pirsig says that Plato's Good and his own
Quality were almost identical. The difference is that Plato's Good was a
fixed and rigid thing while his Quality was dynamic. This does not mean that
it is arbitrary or capricious, as he puts it, but the difference between
them could very well be described as "ontological fixity". Plato had it but
the MOQ does not. 

[Krimel]
Regardless of where it originates the idea that dynamic quality is good or
better or best strips it of being meaningful or useful. It once again is
Pirsig pointing at the moon but missing the mark.

dmb says:
That's completely ridiculous. Nobody has been fighting Democritus and every
normal adult knows perfectly well that physics is not limited to objects
with mass. Pirsig's comments in the SODV paper obviously deals with
contemporary physics and his critique of scientific materialism is largely
aimed at the 20th century versions.

[Krimel]
In the SODV paper Pirsig discussed the physics of the 1920's and
occasionally claim that he understands that this is the current
understanding. I don't know enough physics to know whether this is true or
not neither does Pirsig and neither do you but it hardly puts him on the
cutting edge. What I have tried to show repeatedly over the past several
years is that the MoQ does have the potential to be relevant. What you keep
saying is that it isn't. Well so be it. You have done nothing to show how
the MoQ can be applied to anything or how it relates to anything but your
romantic fantasies. Well fine. It is and will remain a cult phenomenon as
long as this willful ignorance continues. 

dmb says:
I do not argue any such thing. There is nothing supernatural about radical
empiricism or philosophical mysticism. In fact, they both reject the
supernatural and so do I. And for the fifth time, my objections to your
reductionism to not mean that I deny natural processes or the working of the
nervous system. It is simply a denial that these processes and systems are
caused by or equivalent to the experiences which involve them. Every mystic
I ever heard of had a brain and used it. But I am beginning to wonder what's
in your skull, 

[Krimel]
What I have said is that experience is the product of these neural
processes. Experience emerges from those patterns of neural firings.
Understanding those physiological processes can add greatly to our
understanding of how experiences arise. You claim not to deny natural
processes but you do want to ignore them. I don't see a distinction there.

Furthermore, for all your talk of mysticism and the perennial philosophy you
have precious little to say about their relevance.

[dmb]
Krimel. As I see it, you've still got zero points on the board. What is it,
four to nothing? Five? 

[Krimel]
OK, you win. I don't have time for playing games and keeping score. I love
you death man but I sincerely have bigger fish to fry. You too will be
disappearing shortly I suspect. Good luck with school. I hope you pay
attention in your social sciences classes. Let me know if I can help.