[MD] Thinkers and Rainers?

[David Morey]

Hi all

I'd just like to warn anyone who can think for themselves to ignore DMB's silly and dogmatic SOM red flag waving,  the world of SOM criticism is clearly much wider than DMB's rather limited reading list implies, and this reactionary scare mongering will see the MOQ disappear into the margins and be forgotten I fear. If anyone wants to follow a genuinely open exploration of non-dualist thinking in a broader and better connected tradition I recommend Speculative Realism,  shame really,  the MOQ deserves better.

All the best,  good luck,  you will need it.
David Morey 

david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

>Ian said to All:
>The idea of "I" and "Consciousness" as entities in the sense of objective existence in an ontology, is clearly misguided for any of us who already reject SOMism. 
>
>dmb says:
>Sadly, it seems that some people don't really understand what it means to reject SOM. David Morey's recent quest for realism and Marsha's long-held anti-intellectualism, for example, are different ways to misunderstand the subject-object problem and its solution. That's why I posted this thing about rejecting the Cartesian thinker. It's not enough to simply say that the idea is misguided, of course. They both SAY they're opposed and yet they both demonstrate all kinds of misconceptions, with David trying to sneak objectivity back into the picture and Marsha constantly confusing the cure (MOQ) with the disease (SOM).
>
>There's a Wikipedia page on this problem, where it says "Robert M. Pirsig's philosophy of the Metaphysics of Quality is largely concerned with the subject–object problem."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem 
>
>It's not the best source, that's for sure. But it would be a good place to start for those who are generally disoriented. Check it out. 
>
>
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:01 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think, therefore I am? The most famous certainty isn't at all certain.
>> > "The absurdity of this assertion becomes clearer once we switch subjects. We’ve all used the common expression “It’s raining.” But would we say, “It is raining, therefore it is”? What is raining? Do we suppose there is some entity corresponding to the word “it” which is doing the raining? No, of course not!" -- Steven Hagen in "Ergo Sum?"  http://dharmafield.org/resources/texts/ergo-sum/
>> >
>> > But I think Hagen is borrowing this criticism from Nietzsche. As Wiki says...
>> >
>> > "That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks." In other words the "I" in "I think" could be similar to the "It" in "It is raining." "
>> >
>> > William James also attacks this Cartesian self as a non-entity...
>> >
>> > "I believe that consciousness, when once it has evaporated to this estate of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of disappearing altogether. It is the name of a nonentity, and has no right to a place among first principles. Those who still cling to it are clinging to a mere echo, the faint rumor left behind by the disappearing soul upon the air of philosophy. During the past year, I have read a number of articles whose authors seemed just on the point of abandoning the notion of consciousness, and substituting for it that of an absolute experience not due to two factors. But they were not quite radical enough, not daring enough in their negations. For twenty years past I have mistrusted conscousness as an entity: for seven or eight years past I have suggested its non-existence to my students, and tried to give them its pragmatic equivalent in realities of experience. It seems to me that the hour is ripe for it to be openly and universally discarded.
>> >
>> > To deny plumply that consciousness exists seems so absurd on the face of it — for undeniably thoughts do exist — that I fear some readers will follow me no farther. Let me then immediately explain that I mean only to deny that the word stands for an entity, but to insist most emphatically that it does stand for a function. There is, I mean, no aboriginal stuff or quality of being, contrasted with that of which material objects are made, out of which our thoughts of them are made; but there is a function in experience which thoughts perform, and for the performance of which this quality of being is invoked. That function is knowing. Consciousness is supposed necessary to explain the fact that things not only are, but get reported, are known. Whoever blots out the notion of consciousness from his list of first principles must still provide in some way for that function's being carried on."
>> >
>> > Three ways of saying the same thing. This is how Pirsig treats the subject of SOM too. It's just a figure of speech, he says.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> 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
> 		 	   		  
>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