[MD] Buddhism's s/o

[Mary]

Hi DMB,

There's a difference between necessary and sufficient.

> 
> Marsha said:
> I wrote  "To recap why I think Buddhism cannot be used as an exception
> to the Intellectual Level being SOM, I offer these to quotes that
> indicate that Buddhism used logic and the scientific method for an
> objective study of 'Mind'."  I DID NOT write that SOM equated to logic
> and the scientific method.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> So you DID NOT say "Buddhism used logic and the scientific method" and
> you DID NOT give that as your reason for thinking "Buddhism cannot be
> used as an exception to the Intellectual Level being SOM"?
> 
> I mean, if you're NOT equating logic and science with SOM, then the
> quotes indicate nothing about whether or not Buddhism is an exception
> to SOM.
> 
> Anyway, I think SOM has to be inflated and expanded beyond its actual
> meaning before it can be equated with intellect. I think that
> supporters of the idea do a lot of inflating and so your moves here
> look like some more of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > dmb says:
> > >
> > > Can SOM be equated with logic and the scientific method? I don't
> think so. In fact, when James published his essays in radical
> empiricism, Dewey was impressed with the way it retains empirical
> science even though it explicitly rejects SOM. He was pretty psyched,
> in fact.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I offer these quotes to show you how most pragmatists line
> up on this...
> > >
> > > "The instant field of the present is at all times what I call the
> 'pure experience'. It is only virtually or potentially either a subject
> or an object as yet" (James 1912, 23).
> > > "When a subject-object metaphysics regards matter and mind as
> eternally separate and eternally unalike, it creates a platypus bigger
> than the solar system" (Pirsig 1991, 153).
> > > "Realists and idealists assume that subject and object are discrete
> and then debate which term deserves first rank. Dewey assumes that what
> is primary is a whole situation - 'subject' and 'object' have no a
> priori, atomistic existences but are themselves DERIVED from situations
> to serve certain purposes, usually philosophical" (Hildebrand p27)
> > > Hildebrand says, "An empirical approach to metaphysics need not
> presuppose a subject/object dualism - indeed, if experience is
> perspicuously attended to, it should not...Since Dewey will not begin
> metaphysical inquiries by presupposing a subject/object dualism, he
> does not need to ward off the same skeptical demons that plagued
> Descartes...Dewey hoped that through examples and empirical
> observations his distinction between primary and secondary experience
> would be patent and its adoption might economize intellectual effort"
> > > Notice that they are not only rejecting SOM here but also taking up
> those two categories of experience. Primary and secondary are dynamic
> and static or preconceptual and reflective. Dewey also calls them Had
> and Known. He, James and Pirsig are all the list of Pragmatic radical
> empiricists. But Rorty is not one of these precisely because he rejects
> this other, non-SOM distinction.
> > > "To understand why Rorty is wrong," Hildebrand says, "requires that
> we briefly revisit and defend the underlying distinction between
> primary and secondary experience, a distinction Rorty also rejects as
> 'bad faith'". (116-7)
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from
> your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL
> :ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
> 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