Struan and other X'ers
> ( I don't judge Bennett here as I have never heard of him and don't know the context of the
> above quotation)
DLT
FOE- Liner notes on William Barrett 1913-: "is widely known as one of the first philosophers to
introduce existentialism to America. He received his Ph.D from Columbia, served for years as an
editor of Partisan Review, and was the literary critic for the Atlantic Monthly. He has had a long
and distinguished career at New York University, where he served a chairman of the Department of
Philosophy...A much sought-after lecturer and speaker, he has appeared on both American and British
television. He is now Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Pace University."
THE CONTEXT: (from the forward)
"The science which the seventeenth century sought was chiefly physics, the understanding of physical
nature. But at the same time , as the science of nature blossoms, the theories of mind that sprout
among philosophers become more paradoxical and at odds with each other. It is as if the thinkers who
had reared this dazzling structure of he new science were more and more puzzled to understand the
mind that has produced it. The situation has not improved since. In the three and one half centuries
since modern science entered the world, we have added immearsuably to our knowledge of the physical
nature, in scope, depth, and subtlely. But our understanding of human consciousness in this time has
become more fragmentary and bizarre, until at present we seem in danger of losing any intelligent
grasp on the human mind altogether."
STRUAN
> What I am denying is that this constitutes a metaphysics. Modern science and philosophy is
> ultimately concerned with relations, not with substance and certainly not with the chimera that
> constitutes a rift between ourselves and the cosmos.
DLT
Understood. Your position is SO (SOwhat!) absolutely is not an M. It's just that Pirisg, Barrett,
other " contemporary philosophers.." and many participants here claim that in light of no other
logical or meaningful philosophical explanation this "rift between ourselves and the cosmos" has
evolved over time into a defacto M, underlying "real" actions in the "real" world. But,
you're right, as I stated somewhere before, there is no large dust covered tome titled " The
Critique of Pure Subject and Object Metaphysics".
STRUAN
> X is of 'better' quality because it doesn't bring with it the unwanted baggage of 'quality.'
DLT
Your plea for metaphysical words without "the unwanted baggage" would leave us speechless. All words
carry baggage. Would you have us construct " the most broad and general statements about reality"
that hopefully satisfy Poincare's plea, " of being understandable by a child of five" only in
newly created words ? or better yet mathematical terms and formulae of arcane and alchemic
splendor ...?
AND JUST AT THIS TIME THE SUBJECT MEASURED THE OBJECT, HIS BED, AND CONCLUDED:
The MoQ is superfluous, irrelevant, irrational, and suggesting that quality, morality, good, and
value are basic parts of reality is equivalent to the length of ones rectum and the contents
therein.
GEEZ , and your point was ?
DLT
PS: Bye Struan, now that you've proved once again the Pirigism that "bad boyz are good" you can
revert to lurk. Maybe take in a peaceful soccer game.
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