[MD] (Fwd) Re: John Carl Critiques Pure Experience:INST01

[John Carl]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:11 PM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

John earlier]

> Perhaps my mental picture of this process is skewed, but I see an
> > exciting opportunity to flesh out fully the philosophical implications
> > of a Quality Metaphysics in the dialogic commons, and the shotgun
> > approach is always guaranteed to get some pellets in the target.
> > We can't all be Annie Oakley.
>

Bo responds]


>
> I may sound implacable among so many "ecumenics" willing to see
> Quality all over the place, but "the close but not it" is the gravest
> danger.
>

John's response to Bo's response...]


Yep.  You do sound a bit implacable Bo.  It's
sniper-like accuracy or nothing for you.  Ok, I can respect that.
Some philosophers want the concrete too.  But in the interest of aim
and accuracy, what "grave danger" do you foresee?  Being wrong?
Misled?  Worldwide  Nuclear Annihilation?
Cuz when I think danger, nothing seems more grave
than Worldwide  Nuclear Annihilation.  Everything else can be corrected with
a slight readjustment of aim, accounting for windspeed and environmental
factors this time.


>
Bo]


> I mean keeping language out in a philosophical sense. We we write,
> but writing cannot be introduced a part of the argument, f.ex. "my
> writing is just subjective concepts about this issue". This IS SOM. The
> same goes for "thinking" and SOM is made inescapable by such an
> thiargument.
>

John]

Ok, perhaps I understand better.  It is a weak philosophical ploy to say for
instance, "words mean anything you want them to mean and therefore any
argument ends up in a "draw", or like a game of tic tac toe between
experienced players.





>
> > Reality is a concept.  Concepts are part of reality.
>
> >From those premises what's NOT concepts? Everything is (conveyed
> by language or thoughts) even the fact that we "feel" we have a
> different experience from concepts. That is, this is valid if we start from
> SOM's premises, but we are still in SOM, and Pirsig's about "ideas
> creating objects ...etc" stems from his catasropic embrace of James.
>
>
> Maybe I started my Oakliean "fire" too early, perhaps you disagree with
> James!!! And you are d ... right, his about a non-conceptual pure
> experience spawning concepts in the form of SOM (DMB's
> interpretation) is hogwash. However Pirsig's embrace of James almost
> caused MOQ's ruin.
>
>
> Bodvar "the savior"
>
>

I think W. James has been most helpful to the MoQ, and to Philosophy.  But I
don't think his Radical Empiricism creates the concrete metaphysical
foundation he aimed for and I don't think it's adequate alone to underpin
the MoQ.  It seems to me that way too much static attachment has gone into
pure experience as the key to DQ.
 I also think too much negative static fixation on SOM has caused
confusion  in newbies and possibly oldies as well, and ongoing
conflict of the irreconcilable variety.

What is so bad about subjects and objects?  The only real problem with a S/O
universe is that there is no room for values.  It is a value-less
metaphysics that we should be objecting too.  It is possible for even the
MoQ to be Value-Free, if values mean mere "differentiation" as opposed to a
transcendant idealistic "Good".  Here is where the crux of the conflict is,
as I see it now.

John



>
>
> 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/
>