[MD] Consciousness & Moq.

[Krimel]

[Dave]
What is amusing is not only do you now know his complete position without
ever reading his book, but that his position aligns and supports yours,
Pirsig's, and James'. What's the old saying about shunning fools?

[Krimel]
That really is the heart of it, you know. dmb is not interested in
pragmatism or philosophy of mind at all really. He is interested in
supporting his interpretation of Pirsig. He begins with his conception of it
and is only interested in finding support for it. As a result he only looks
in a narrow range of places and only finds what he is looking for.

This is the Greek style of deduction. It is top down. Beginning from a
statement of truth and reasoning towards particulars. It was the ruling mode
of thought throughout the middle ages. It was this influence of the Greek
style of thinking on Christianity that produced the field of Apologetics.
Christian apologists from Origin to Aquinas took the premises of the faith
and used deduction to justify them. It is this peculiar and outmoded form
that dmb bring to the table. Whatever Pirsig said must be true and requires
a defense no matter how contrived.

We see in Descartes this style in its last gasps. Descartes' cogito was
pulled out of him. He was not a skeptic. He was looking to answer
skepticism. His cogito is product of 17th century European thinking in the
sense that it was a reaction against it. He was on the edge of the
scientific revolution that began with Bacon and became final with Newton.
Descartes pushes the process forward but still clings to and uses the notion
of God's perfect goodness in his argument. In fact he announces the cogito
and then takes those odd sounding turns of premise based "logic" to escape
it. It reminds me of Newton who gives us the inductive style of reasoning
full blown, all the while dabbling in alchemy and Kabbalah style readings of
scripture.

As culture begins to embrace a new vision it still clings to the old ways of
seeing. It is impossible even for people like Descartes and Newton to sling
off all of the shackles of the old at once. Or like James, Wallace and
Fechner unable to see past spiritualist notions while they are actively
engaged in their undoing.

I fear that in modern times we are sloughing of old styles of thinking at
such a rapid pace that we run the risk having culture just dissolving into
slough. A philosophy that sees the world as a process of static and dynamic
flow would come in handy right about now. You know, one that embraces the
process of evolution and Heraclytian change. One that recommends against
clinging to static points of view and in favor of openness to what is new
and dynamic in each passing moment. One that brings probability front and
center and appreciates the psychological and philosophical dimensions of
uncertainty.

Darwin meets Lao Tsu if you will.