[MD] What is SOM?

[david buchanan]

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 replied:
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.

dmb replies to the reply:
Argument from authority, again? Nonsense. In both cases the contention was over what Pirsig did or did not say, what Pirsig does or not not think. It is perfectly normal to use textual evidence in such a debate. In fact, I can think of nothing more relevant to such a debate and in that context your objection to it is laughable.

More importantly, yes. I'm saying ontology is essentialism and the MOQ ain't got none. The primary empirical reality is neither physical nor psychical. Its not behind experience or the cause of experience or the conditions of experience or the ontological ground of experience. That's why there are no TITs. Literally nothing? Only if experience counts as nothing. I realize this sounds crazy to you but that's pretty much been the main point all along. 

Krimel said:
What I have said is that experience is the product of these neural processes. Experience emerges from those patterns of neural firings.

dmb says:
Yea, I know. And when you say stuff like that I explain that this view is callled reductionism.

Krimel continued:
Understanding those physiological processes can add greatly to our understanding of how experiences arise. 

dmb says:
Gee, ya think?

Krimel said:
You claim not to deny natural processes but you do want to ignore them. I don't see a distinction there.

dmb says:
The first distinction you should take a look at is the one between my actual claims and what you imagine I want. The second distinction to notice is the one between biology and metaphysics. As I already explained, your SOMist, reductionist assertions are all predicated on the very assumptions in question. If SOM is in contention, it simply begs the question to make assertions as if SOM were true. I'd add that all your criticisms of the scientific points bare the same mark. You take them to task as if they were being made from within the assumptions they're intended to replace. Beside that crucial point about the nature of the topic, you're just stating the obvious. Who would deny natural processes? What would that even mean?

"The MOQ subscribes to what is called empiricism. It claims that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by thinking about what the senses provide. Most empiricists deny the validity of any knowledge gained through imagination, authority, tradition or purely theoretical reasoning. They regard fields such as art, morality, religion and metaphysics as unverifiable. The MOQ varies from this by saying that the values of art, morality and even religious mysticism are verifiable, and that in the past they have been excluded for metaphysical reasons, not empirical reasons. They have been excluded because of the metaphysical assumption that all the universe is composed of subjects and objects and anything that can't be classified as a subject or an object isn't real. There is no empirical evidence for this assumption at all. Its just an assumption."

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

dmb says:
Philosophical mysticism is totally down with these these anti-essentialist claims. As Marsha will tell you, all that talk about emptiness and nothingness (as in no 'thing' ness) is anti-essentialism. Two other names for the primary empirical reality are the preconceptual reality and the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. These terms also get at the idea of no 'thing' ness. In the former you could say it is the cutting edge of experience prior to any concepts of things and in the latter you could say that things are not yet differentiated from the continuum of experience. This is also what James's Radical Empiricism calls pure experience, before it is sorted out in terms of subjects and objects. Mysticism is not just relevant to these things. These things add up to mysticism, they are among the most important components of the position called philosophical mysticism.  

Krimel said:
Good luck with school. I hope you pay attention in your social sciences classes. Let me know if I can help.

dmb says:
Thanks.




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