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

[skutvik at online.no]

John 

30 July.

After I had said:
> > To your "objection" which is so embarrassing that it makes me wonder
> > if there is no limit. "Ideas" (mind patterns) what the MOQ rejects
> > as its opening move. But of course with the elderly Pirsig
> > introducing ideas you are justified. As said the MOQ must be the
> > strangest case ever: A thinker starting out with a revolutionary
> > system and then abandoning its  revolutionary part. to get inside
> > academy.  See what he got, a whole lot of of thinkers "saying the
> > same" only better.
 
You said:
> 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.

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.        

Ron citing LILA:
> > > "The second of James' two main systems of philosophy, which he
> > > said was independent of pragmatism, was his radical empiricism. By
> > > this he meant that subjects and objects are not the starting
> > > points of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are
> > > concepts derived from something more fundamental which he
> > > described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the
> > > material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories.'

Bo:
> > Right, the subject/object "aggregate" is DQ's first static "fallout"
> > (in ZAMM) but there's nothing about these being secondary due to
> > their being concepts. Jesus, what's not conceptual if we enter THAT
> > as an issue? How can DQ be kept out of the conceptual vortex except
> > James (and  the elderly Pirsig) saying so ... by use of languaege.
> > Don't be outright stupid! Language must be kept out of any
> > philosophy lest it ends in absurdity.

John:
> Well one doesn't need to be ANY sort of Annie Oakley to take a potshot
> at that last statement.  How the heck do you talk about keeping
> language out of philosophy?   Talk about absurd.   If you ask me, what
> we need around here, besides a good disambiguation of "value"  is a
> good definition of "concept".

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.        

> 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. 

The REAL MOQ's way of escaping SOM is the much referred to out-in 
in turn of postulating SOM to be DQ's static fallout (the only on in 
ZAMM the highest of four levels in LILA) and thereby making all SOM-
induced paradoxes and absurdities go poof.        

> The Jamesian proposition that the two are ALWAYS discontinuous is of
> little intellectual Quality,  In my opinion.  And I don't say "humble"
> opinion because I am nothing but a humble woodcutter and all my
> opinions are humble. 

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"