[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
The intellect can produce any number of metaphysical systems. SOM and the MOQ are two such systems and they can hang next to countless other...

Mary Replied:
Yes.  'Any number' of systems.  All of them involve a subject thinking about an object.  All are included.  None are left out.

dmb says:

All metaphysical systems involve subjects thinking about objects? Again, you have inflated SOM way beyond its actual meaning. Again, the problem is this notion that subject and object are two entirely different kinds of entities. But you and Bo seem to think the problem is thinking itself. If there are thoughts, then there is a mind and mind is the subject so, you conclude, anybody who ever had a thought about anything has committed themselves to SOM. Or to put it another way, you and Bo think there is no such thing as thinking without SOM. 

I'm trying to be patient and polite about this, but damn! I really think you don't understand what the problem is. Rejecting SOM means rejecting a certain conception of "mind" but it is not opposed to thinking or thoughts. A philosophy that's against thinking? How pointless would that be? 

Khoo said to dmb:
This is about as strong a refutation of the SOL as the QI argument as I have ever seen stated boldy and without reservation. There are 84,000 ways to meditate. Take your pick.

dmb says:

Thanks, Khoo. It's sometimes hard to tell if anyone is seeing the point and so your kind words are very encouraging.
 

Mary Replied:
What was the Buddha thinking about under the tree?  Is the East really so different?


dmb says:

Again, it seems there is an unstated premise here. You say the East is not different to imply that they suffer from SOM just like we do here in the West. Is that the idea? And you ask about what the Buddha was thinking because you think that thinking is what defines SOM. Again, the point of being opposed to subject-object dualism is not to condemn thinking but rather to dispute a certain conception of mind.

For example, in the first of the essays in radical empiricism is titled "Does Consciousness Exist?". The answer James gives is "no", not if consciousness is conceived as a distinct entity or thing as Descartes said. Instead, James says, consciousness is a function within experience. It's not a thing. It is a process or function and it is NOT an ontologically distinct reality.

That is why Bo freaks out over the idea that the MOQ is just a set of ideas. If it is an idea, he figures, then it can only exist in the mind and the mind can only ever be the subjective half of SOM. But this is very bad reasoning and it is based on a major misconception of the problem, a inflated idea of what he Cartesian subject is and so of course the solution (MOQ) doesn't make much sense either.

And it's not quite relevant to this point, but haven't you noticed how Pirsig's central concept (DQ) plays almost no role in Bo's theory? If the problem (SOM), the solution (MOQ) and the mystical nature of his central term (DQ) are all misunderstood then there is basically no chance that this theory is worth anything at all. Honestly, I can't think of anything about Pirsig's work that is properly understood by Bo. 

I see you as a victim here, Mary. If you came here to better understand the MOQ, I'd suggest you stop listening to Bo. On the other hand, how in the world do you figure such opinions can outweigh all the scholars of pragmatism that I've quoted on this topic? Isn't is wildly unreasonable to dismiss Pirsig and a whole pack of professionals? I think so. If Bo had just one competent thinker on his side, it might be possible to make a case that the issue is debatable. But he doesn't and it isn't. 



 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
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