[MD] Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks

[skutvik at online.no]

DMB, Krimel, All. 

Krimel had said:
> I don't think the cogito moves us anywhere near a subject or objects.
> I just used "subject" because the statement contains some "I"s. All it
> says is that I know that I exist in virtue of my thoughts. I cannot
> seriously doubt that I am having thoughts but that says buttkiss about
> what thoughts are, where they come from, what my relationship to them
> is or anything whatever about the "I" that is having them. Most of the
> "problems" associated with Descartes come from his own elaborations of
> the cogito and from the elaborations of his commentators.

dmb commented:
 
> Well, there is some truth to the idea that subsequent commentators
> gave shape to Descartes ideas. But it's also true that Descartes is
> the father of SOM. In fact the subjective side of SOM is what we'd
> call the Cartesian self. For Renee the mind was an unextented
> substance and matter was extended substance and the connection between
> these two categories is THEE problem of Modern epistemology. Before
> Descartes the word "mind" was not used as a noun, was not concieved as
> a thing. It was just a verb, as in "mind your manners". William
> James's ESSAYS ON RADICAL EMPIRICISM begins with the essay titled
> "Does Consciousness Exist?". He answers in the negative. He says that
> consciousness is not a thing but rather a function, a verb. 

Happy to partly agree with you, Descartes as THE father of SOM 
however isn't correct, he is the father of its Mind/Matter variant. 
Regarding the unextended vs extended Spinoza grabbed this S/Oish 
distinction and elaborated on it, I believe he postulated God as 
unextended and thus made him into a spiritual entity - no wonder he 
was excommunicated by the Jews even if being a Jew. About James 
denying consciousness - maybe, but from SOM's p.o.v. it's impossible 
to escape one of its "poles" because they are interdependnt. And 
James as a SOMist I don't recant about, one is a SOMist until one has 
discovered the Dynamic/Static context - the MOQ - and James' 
Dynamic/Concept entry falls miles short of target.   

> Nietzsche had said the same thing in his own pithy way. He said
> statements like "I think" are misleading insofar as the "I" is
> concieved as the thing that does the thinking. Compare that statement
> to statements like "it is raining". Do we imagine there actually is an
> "it" that does the raining? No. The rain is all there is to raining.
> When thunder rolls there is no thunderer that preforms the task.

Well, from intellect seen there is no person or personal force behind 
the weather (for instance) but before intellect - at the social level - 
there was no objective, indifferent, nature it was all moods ... "sound 
and fury". Nietzsche was on to something at least in demasking SOM's 
hollowness, but his insanity did not result in any relief from SOM as 
with Pirsig.    
 
> And then there is Pirsig's correction of Descartes. To dispute this
> correction is to dispute almost all postmodern thinkers. Not that
> postmodernist are into the levels of the MOQ. But it is a widely
> accepted notion that all ideas grow out of a cultural context and have
> meaning by virtue of that context. Explore the concepts behind
> "contextualism" and you'll see that for yourself. 









> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html
> 
>