[MD] Consciousness & Moq.

[David Thomas]

Hi Krimel,

> [Krimel]
> Again, sorry for butting in Dave T. but this was just too funny.
> I think the guy should get his own show.
Oh he used to have one on a local public radio station as I recall.
My guess is that in his heart of hearts he would love to be a Liberal Rush.

> You?

Well I just think it's odd that Pirsig doesn't address "conscious
experience" or consciousness" in any substantial way since it has been a
central issue surrounding "experience" for a long time.

DMB's pointing to James for RMP's answer I believe, as he so graciously
posted, is "disingenuous."  But it is more than that. Channeling all of
James' work thru RMP or visa versa is fraught with problems because their
positions on so many fundamental issues is completely opposite. This is a
partial list started for another post I never sent.

RMP-James
Monism-Pluralism
Anti-Theist-Theist
Quality source of Moral Order-God source of Moral Order
Whole divides into parts-Parts conjoin to create whole.
Reductionist-Expansionist

If you do the same with Chalmers.

RMP-Chalmers
Monist-Dualist

To claim that RMP's work unites all these positions seamlessly is
delusional. I added the "Reductionist" to Pirsig because if you are going to
reduce all of reality to "Quality" doesn't that make you the ultimate
reductionist?

The more I consider "philosophy", in Rorty's context as a type of
literature, the more I think it creates far more problems than it solves. As
I noted in an early post to DMP, I'm with Popper in that it really creates
problems when it strays too far from its original roots of integrating the
data of science into a comprehensible whole. In my mind things like
"political science" and "political philosophy" are oxymorons of the crudest
type.

Dave