Just a few words about SOM as a philosophical target.
In response to the idea that SOM is "no big deal" I had disagreed with
Struan, saying...
"I really don't see room for honest disagreement here. I think there is
great level of certainty on some matters. The sky is blue, the Earth is
round and Scientific materialism is the West's world-view."
STRUAN and/or his 'alter ego,' one Theo Schramm responded with...
Of course scientific materialism is the predominant world view in the West.
I never claimed it
wasn't, as any cursory glance at the archives will show. The problem is,
DMB, that you don't
understand coherent materialism so you invent your own simplistic,
'neo-Democritic,' version and
call it SOM. Then you obliquely question my honesty by falsely equating the
two and suggesting that
I do the same. I do not. I never have. I never will and still I don't. So, I
will restate the above
sentence again just for you. Modern scientific materialism is ultimately
concerned with relations,
not with substance and certainly not with the chimera that constitutes a
rift between ourselves and
the cosmos. But enough, one could spend all day correcting your inventions
and distortions so I will
leave it there.
DMB says
OK, calm down. We're just talking here. There is no reason to get upset. In
fact, I didn't mean to imply any dishonesty on your part. The phrase "no
room for honest disagreement" simply conveys a level of certainty on the
issue. But while we're on the topic, posting opinions that you don't really
believe under a false name isn't quite honest. It IS interesting as an
experiment, however, and I'm a little jealous that I didn't think of it too.
Did I interact with your alter ego?
More to the point, I'm not the only one who makes the connection between
scientific materialism and SOM. Pirsig is all over that one. Maybe that's
where the disagreement truely lies? In any case, to say that Scientific
materialism is not concerned with substance seems plainly illogical to me.
What's the difference between material and substance? And I thought it was
metaphysics that was "ultimately concerned with relations"? But the point
is, Pirsig describes the same problem using both terms. The flaw in our
intellect, in our world-view is called SOM and amoral scientific
objectivity. Its the same thing. Sure there are distinctions to be made,
there are dissenters, people who've recognized the same issues. Its a rich
and complex thing. But in the broad view, the only real difference between
metaphysics and a world-view is the formality with which it is absorbed, the
particular brand you buy. Even the idealists and romantics are stuck with
reacting to the same deal, and I thinks it's plenty BIG.
What does neo-Democritic mean?
How did Wittgenstein end the Cartesian era?
Didn't the Vienna Circle seek to create a meta-language free of
subjectivity? It seems to me that the Linguistic philosophers were very much
caught up in SOM, even if they never called it that.
Looking forward to your polite and reasonable response.
Thanks for your time. DMB
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST