[MD] philosophology

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Dan, inserted below:

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone


[IG] Your early paragraphs - all opinions about other individuals. I take a
more charitable view.


> I do not feel we are not beholden to SOMist language any more than we are
> to seeing the world as composed of only subjects and objects. Rationality
> and logic do not depend on subjects and objects. The MOQ makes use of
> patterns of quality to interpret the world, expand rationality, and improve
> logic.
>

[IG] OK, but you are now expanding the definition of logic as well as the
definition of rationality - a logic that is about more than objective
relations. (I'm more than OK with that.)

>
>
> >
> > I'm OK with that, because I don't feel bound with intellect or philosophy
> > being constrained by that kind of logic. Pirsig used a greater aesthetic
> in
> > his rhetorical communications - and we find quality in him for that very
> > reason.
> >
> > ****
> > My axioms were so clean-hewn,
> > The joins of ‘thus’ and ‘therefore’ neat
> > But, I admit
> > Life would not fit
> > Between straight lines
> > And all the cornflowers said was ‘blue,’
> > All summer long, so blue.
> > So when the sea came in and with one wave
> > Threatened to wash my edifice away -
> > I let it.
> >
> > Marianne Jones
> > ****
> > Let it go.
> > Let the SOMist debate go.
> >
>
> Dan:
> Exactly. Yet at the same time, there are those here who insist we as
> individual subjects experience a world made up of objects. Even though
> Robert Pirsig is quite clear in saying the MOQ opposes any such
> notion--that the central reality of the MOQ isn't a subject or an
> object--these folk continue arguing in favor of subjects experiencing
> objective reality.
>
> Bodvar spent countless years harping on this idea. Yet it was clear he had
> to dismiss most everything about the MOQ to reach such a conclusion. Now,
> we have David Harding, David Morey, Marsha, and others all continuing along
> this very same route. No matter who tries to dissuade them, even Robert
> Pirsig, they keep on clinging to what they know in favor of letting go and
> taking a chance on seeing what the MOQ is saying.
>

[IG] Wow, about Bo, I might agree (I spent a lot of time discussing with Bo
the "patient / disease" error, as dmb would call it). About others I just
don't see anyone (other than dmb ironically ;-) "arguing in favor of
subjects experiencing objective reality".

I honestly still believe the whole long-running argument is simply a SOMist
language communication problem - that we ALL share since Aristotle -
particularly if we take the "critical" stance with those we are arguing
"against". Being more charitable I take a more "fluid integrative" view of
those I am debating "with". Critique against - is inherently SOMist. Me vs
other.

Ian