[MD] CA1

[John Carl]

hey dave,


>
> John said: motorcycles and sausages are spiritual.  duh.  The buddha can be
> found in simple things. I don't quite get how making that claim would be "an
> enormous" mistake.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Exactly. You don't see how that would be an enormous mistake. I think it's
> simple. There is nothing supernatural about motorcycles and sausages.



John:

Right!  We agree completely then.  There is also nothing supernatural about
"spirit", dave.  I realize lots of people think there is, but they are
wrong.  Spirit seems supernatural from a somist viewpoint, but not from the
MoQ.  Remember the about face when Chris mentioned his friend who believed
in ghosts was an Indian schoolmate?  Because spirit is a high quality
intellectual explanation, from the context of some cultures, and only in the
world view of scientific materialism is it at all woogy.

The word that is interpreted "spirit" in the bible, comes ffrom the Greek
form "pneuma".  Look up wind or breath.  Let Goethe guide you.  Let Pirsig
guide you.  It's the same metaphysical meaning as we call DQ.  In the
hardware/software analogy, spirit just means software.  A pattern of meaning
that is non-materialistic.



> Nobody needs faith to believe in a Harley Davidson. That's one huge
> difference between Quality and the imagined Spirit these Idealists are
> hanging their hat upon.
>
>

John:

Nobody mentioned faith, dave.  You're construing again. That "projection"
thing you like to do a lot and then project on others?

Drop it.

 Please pay attention to the actual content of a passage and leave your
anti-theistic baggage behind.  You don't have to fight quite so hard.

You really should investigate the meaning of that term, by the way. You're
> using "idealism" in the conventional sense rather than the philosophical
> meaning and those two are very different things. Also, you'll want to
> investigate the difference between subjective Idealism and Absolute
> Idealism. Those are also very different things.
>
>

John:

Any such suggestions, I will consider.  It's a process dave.  I'm in it.
Part of the reason for the process is exactly to do what you suggest.

To my understanding so far, subjective idealism is simply that it's all in
your head.  The full-on, subjective horn of the stampeding bull.  The part
that Phaedrus walked out on in Benares when he calmly raised his hand and
asked if Hiroshima was an illusion.

I agree with that rejection.  For one thing, meaning cannot be formed
solipsistically.

Absolute Idealism, however, is the crux of the debate, my contention being
that the best expressed form of Absolute Idealism today is the MoQ.

A thesis, btw, which you have not addressed at all except in the lamest and
most non-rational critique I've ever witnessed from any thinker or
philosopher I've ever experienced.

So far your position as communicated to me has been "because Bob say's its
got connotations"   and "Hegel was a loser".

Real profound.

Get some cojones and actually do some thinking here, eh?


Oh, and you should probably also find out what "phenomenalism" means.
>
>
John:

I'm sure I will, in good time.

(btw - did anyone ever tell you you sure are cute when you get all snarky)


>
> John said:
> Well it looks to me like this dispute resonates to my opposition to dmb and
> the pure experiencers.  I posit Quality as the one spiritual reality, and he
> emphasizes the DQ of pure experience. This means dave's a phenomenalist?  I
> didn't realize.
>
>
> dmb says:
> No, phenomenalism is old school empiricism. It's a position that basically
> says our knowledge is confined to appearances and that is generally
> understood in terms of what the five sense present in experience. They might
> say there are things-in-themselves but we can never know them except as they
> appear. Those appearances are called phenomena, thus the name.
>
>
John:

Not quite.  Because the phenomenalist include mental phenomena in their
phenominalism.  Independent of any sensory confirmation - Ideas about things
that might exist, might not exist, but are conceptions of mind which have
relation to empirical knowledge without deriving from them.

And I think it's a damn fine position.  I wouldn't disparage this stance so
easily as I would a scientific materialist.

And stop trying to tempt me to look stuff up on wiki!

You bad boy you.





> The MOQ's empiricism is not limited to the five senses, it denies
> things-in-themselves and there is no distinction between appearance and
> realities in themselves. In the MOQ, experience is reality. Pure Quality
> itself is known directly in experience. It appears in experience and so it
> is a phenomenal reality in that sense, but that notion has to be understood
> within the context of radical empiricism rather than traditional SOM
> empiricism.
>
>

John:

Yes, that is understood.  But don't jump to conclusions that the
phenomenalists, as described by Copleston, were coming from a SOM
perspective.  My readings indicate they were not.  In which case, they can
be easily embraced by the MoQ. As you are pointing out.



You might also want to investigate the differences between "phenomenalism"
> and "phenomenology".
>
>
John:

Well, I know the difference between an "ism" and an "ology".  From the first
you take your metaphysical stance,  the second you analyze and understand
from a different metaphysical platform.

Which is why I think your radical empiricism is a form of phenomenalism,
whereas the MoQ is more properly concerned with phenomenology.




> I'm trying to be helpful here John. But I also have to say that your
> comments plainly show that you do not understand the key terms. Maybe if you
> had a good encyclopedia, your comments would be more convincing. Until you
> get that kind of help, I'm afraid, it's going to be pretty obvious that
> you're only pretending.
>
>
>

John:

Oh, you do make me laugh dave.  You're so predictable.  It's that projection
thing again isn't it.  You really need to see a therapist for an extended
time, imho.

Pretending to what?  To be  smarter than I actually am?  How does a guy even
do that?

Never mind, I'll take your expert witness.

I really have no need to pretend to be an unemployed contractor struggling
with ideas and philosophical understandings.  That's what I am.  So I guess
I could be thought of as pretending to be who I am, but that gets kinda
convoluted, doesn't it?

Deal with the text dave.  If you can catch me out in a logical contradiction
or a mistake, I'll be surprised and grateful.  Surprised not because I don't
constantly make mistakes, but surprised that you are actually clever enough
to find it and point it out, without having to resort to your insipid ad
hominem silliness.

 But hey, thanks for trying.  It always so much more fun when you try.

John